Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution  at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.

If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change."

Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid.

Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants.

What a slippery snake!

A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE.

''A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.''

You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it.

The only reason he rejects evolution is because it messes up his fairy tale about how an invisible man far away in another universe created this universe and created this special type of primates who can worship him.  Oh, yeah he created everything else as well

Ignoring genetic disorders, cataclysmic events, extinction of whole species, creation of new species, planets, solar systems and galaxies coliding etc.   It is a "perfect" design.

I like science fiction as well as the next guy. But there is a time when we need to step out of the science fiction of evolution, and get on with reality.

Google "why evolution is false" to see lots of reason that it is science fiction. Look here http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html for 9 reason why evolution is science fiction, and the reasons why it is being pushed in the education systems as truth, even though it is false.

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody I can post hundreds debunking it, as I said previously. Why is that link better than the thousands of articles explaining evolution? How do you exactly pick what links you are in favor of?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-Unscientific-Excuses-to-Ignore-Evolution

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3r2jjz/what_the_hell_9_scientific_facts_prove_the_theory/?st=j35lzyl1&sh=ab7a92f9

I can link thousands of actual scientific documents about evolution, you still wouldn't believe any of them, you rather believe what someone says in a website that is a stupid conspiracy theory website, nice fucking sources you have

[Deluzi]

yes!!

It's just because we all started exist frm the beggining, if not, then explain this to me, what was fisrt a chicken or an egg?

[ridery99]

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody

Yes it's very important to take seriously what Dawkins says because he is very popular. It doesn't matter if anything he says makes sense but I believe him because he is famous. I'm very intelligent, not a mindless sheep following stupid masses 

[Astargath]

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody

Yes it's very important to take seriously what Dawkins says because he is very popular. It doesn't matter if anything he says makes sense but I believe him because he is famous. I'm very intelligent, not a mindless sheep following stupid masses 

Dawkins? Who said anything about dawkins? Mindless sheep following every scientist in the world, so you would rather follow the guy who writes about conspiracy theories in that website he linked than actual scientists who studied, tested and proved evolution, are you sure I am the one who is mindless?

By a nobody I meant literally a nobody, that website is run by whom exactly? Someone who believes in every single conspiracy there is. I didn't mean to say you should trust someone's opinion because he is famous but you should definitely have some trust in what respected scientists have to say, dawkins is one of them surely, I wouldn't just believe anything Dawkins says but if 99.9% of the other scientists actually agree, provide proof, evidence why in the world would I disagree with them?

[BADecker]

If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution  at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.

If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change."

Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid.

Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants.

What a slippery snake!

A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE.

''A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.''

You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it.

The only reason he rejects evolution is because it messes up his fairy tale about how an invisible man far away in another universe created this universe and created this special type of primates who can worship him.  Oh, yeah he created everything else as well

Ignoring genetic disorders, cataclysmic events, extinction of whole species, creation of new species, planets, solar systems and galaxies coliding etc.   It is a "perfect" design.

I like science fiction as well as the next guy. But there is a time when we need to step out of the science fiction of evolution, and get on with reality.

Google "why evolution is false" to see lots of reason that it is science fiction. Look here http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html for 9 reason why evolution is science fiction, and the reasons why it is being pushed in the education systems as truth, even though it is false.

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody I can post hundreds debunking it, as I said previously. Why is that link better than the thousands of articles explaining evolution? How do you exactly pick what links you are in favor of?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-Unscientific-Excuses-to-Ignore-Evolution

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3r2jjz/what_the_hell_9_scientific_facts_prove_the_theory/?st=j35lzyl1&sh=ab7a92f9

I can link thousands of actual scientific documents about evolution, you still wouldn't believe any of them, you rather believe what someone says in a website that is a stupid conspiracy theory website, nice fucking sources you have

All anti-evolution debunking is completely false for at least one of 3 reasons:
1. Much of the debunking has simple, blatant mistakes in it;
2. Most of the debunking doesn't get down to the basics of the debunking points, and is incomplete because of this;
3. All of the debunking not covered by the above, two points is based on theory, which even science admits is not known to be factual.

At the same time, probability math and Irreducible Complexity are scientific facts, essentially scientific laws, that are bases that science sits on.

Anti-evolution rebuttals fail miserably.

Since they fail, that simply is further evidence of an agenda of falsehood among evolution promoters, and many evolution believers.

[criptix]

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody

I'm very intelligent, not a mindless sheep following stupid masses 

So which ivy league college did you visit? 

[Astargath]

If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution  at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.

If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change."

Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid.

Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants.

What a slippery snake!

A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE.

''A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.''

You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it.

The only reason he rejects evolution is because it messes up his fairy tale about how an invisible man far away in another universe created this universe and created this special type of primates who can worship him.  Oh, yeah he created everything else as well

Ignoring genetic disorders, cataclysmic events, extinction of whole species, creation of new species, planets, solar systems and galaxies coliding etc.   It is a "perfect" design.

I like science fiction as well as the next guy. But there is a time when we need to step out of the science fiction of evolution, and get on with reality.

Google "why evolution is false" to see lots of reason that it is science fiction. Look here http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html for 9 reason why evolution is science fiction, and the reasons why it is being pushed in the education systems as truth, even though it is false.

For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody I can post hundreds debunking it, as I said previously. Why is that link better than the thousands of articles explaining evolution? How do you exactly pick what links you are in favor of?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-Unscientific-Excuses-to-Ignore-Evolution

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3r2jjz/what_the_hell_9_scientific_facts_prove_the_theory/?st=j35lzyl1&sh=ab7a92f9

I can link thousands of actual scientific documents about evolution, you still wouldn't believe any of them, you rather believe what someone says in a website that is a stupid conspiracy theory website, nice fucking sources you have

All anti-evolution debunking is completely false for at least one of 3 reasons:
1. Much of the debunking has simple, blatant mistakes in it;
2. Most of the debunking doesn't get down to the basics of the debunking points, and is incomplete because of this;
3. All of the debunking not covered by the above, two points is based on theory, which even science admits is not known to be factual.

At the same time, probability math and Irreducible Complexity are scientific facts, essentially scientific laws, that are bases that science sits on.

Anti-evolution rebuttals fail miserably.

Since they fail, that simply is further evidence of an agenda of falsehood among evolution promoters, and many evolution believers.

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

[criptix]

@Astagart

Never heard of fake news or alternative facts?!

[BADecker]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

[Astargath]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

[BADecker]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

[Astargath]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

[BADecker]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

So there is no point in even mentioning evolution except as science fiction.

[Astargath]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

So there is no point in even mentioning evolution except as science fiction.

1.You assume that random does not exist.
2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist.
3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated.
4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution.
5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong.

The age of the earth has been proven by many many different methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

[exemplaar]

Too many fairy tale writings going on here. Time for truth bombs to drop.

Why people believe they are on a spinning globe & evolved from monkey's. Hilarious interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgytQn0C_gE

Bonus video: which model does evolution require - badecker exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9L03dg-2w

[BADecker]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

So there is no point in even mentioning evolution except as science fiction.

1.You assume that random does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Random has not been found. Newton's 3rd Law (did you catch that? LAW) upholds cause and effect. Stick with the law.

2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Evolution in the sense we are talking - evolving from inanimate to human - has not been found. I have listed a few of the reasons why it is impossible. Searching the Net will show you many more.

3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated.

But you avoid the fundamentals of science... science law.

4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution.

The wording, "We still haven't established what we're talking about," is part of the article in one of your links. It shows that the article is useless.

Now, you are trying to apply that wording to things that you and I are discussing. Doing such shows your nefarious intent.

5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong.

A steady stream is not needed, because one broken link in the evolution chain destroys the whole thing. Yet I have shown several. And the Net is full of many more... plus a whole lot of other things that provide a lot of evolution-doubt.

The age of the earth has been proven by many many different methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

The age of the earth has not been proven. Many of the people who have written papers on the age of the earth have said, suggested, or hinted that the only reason they were stating the age of the earth to be as long as they suggested, was to keep continuity among the sciences, so that science could move forward.

The only provable age is not even clear. But, it goes back to between 4,500 and 5,000 years. All the rest of it is theories or guesses, for one reason or another.

Possibly the greatest reason for the guesses about the age of the earth is, nobody knows if the physics of the planet was the same in the past as it is now. And nobody can more than guess how great the differences of past physics might have been. All guesswork.

The best we have is the written record of the Bible... not in a religious sense, but in an eye-witness sense.

[BADecker]

Bonus video: which model does evolution require - badecker exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9L03dg-2w

I seriously can't figure out what the point of the video is. Can you say it straight out in a few short words?   

[Astargath]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

So there is no point in even mentioning evolution except as science fiction.

1.You assume that random does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Random has not been found. Newton's 3rd Law (did you catch that? LAW) upholds cause and effect. Stick with the law.

asda

2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Evolution in the sense we are talking - evolving from inanimate to human - has not been found. I have listed a few of the reasons why it is impossible. Searching the Net will show you many more.

3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated.

But you avoid the fundamentals of science... science law.

4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution.

The wording, "We still haven't established what we're talking about," is part of the article in one of your links. It shows that the article is useless.

Now, you are trying to apply that wording to things that you and I are discussing. Doing such shows your nefarious intent.

5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong.

A steady stream is not needed, because one broken link in the evolution chain destroys the whole thing. Yet I have shown several. And the Net is full of many more... plus a whole lot of other things that provide a lot of evolution-doubt.

The age of the earth has been proven by many many different methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

The age of the earth has not been proven. Many of the people who have written papers on the age of the earth have said, suggested, or hinted that the only reason they were stating the age of the earth to be as long as they suggested, was to keep continuity among the sciences, so that science could move forward.

The only provable age is not even clear. But, it goes back to between 4,500 and 5,000 years. All the rest of it is theories or guesses, for one reason or another.

Possibly the greatest reason for the guesses about the age of the earth is, nobody knows if the physics of the planet was the same in the past as it is now. And nobody can more than guess how great the differences of past physics might have been. All guesswork.

The best we have is the written record of the Bible... not in a religious sense, but in an eye-witness sense.

Show me those people that you say have written papers just to keep continuity among the sciences, I want proof of that. The age of the earth has been proven, by many methods as I previously stated.
Radiometric dating which uses different radioactive elements that all show the same thing when you measure it. Of course you wouldn't agree with this fact, no surprise there. Obviously the best we have is a book written a few thousand years ago, obviously, hehe. A book that can't be verified whatsoever, that's definitely the best we have.


Say for a moment what you said about randomness is true, nothing is random, all cause and effect, how does that prove God? The only thing you proved is that nothing is random, you don't know if God was the first cause, which God? Maybe it was something else, how can you tell it was God? I would like to know how can you tell it was God

Secondly, it seems to be a problem, the bible talks about free will, if there is free will that means human behavior is indeed random, therefore pure randomness does exist, if it didn't that would mean everything you and I will ever do it's already ''written'' meaning that we don't actually have free will, so which one is it?

Thirdly, how did creationism help with anything? We based pretty much everything we have today on science, cars, planes, medicine... As far as I know when you get sick you go to the doctor, prayers don't work so well.

You can be ignorant on purpose if that's what you want but evolution is a fact, the evidence and proof is too much to ignore, you can keep lying to yourself but it's the truth.

[BADecker]

1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.

Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?

Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.

If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.

Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.

Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.

Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.

''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.

Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.

Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.

Most evolution people use the evidence in ways that are completely opposite of the way evidence must be used to prove anything. I don't blame them for this. They don't have anything else. It is extremely difficult to make the evidence fit scientifically impossible evolution. I don't blame them for their attempts. After all, it is their religion.

Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.

Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.

So there is no point in mentioning probability.

So there is no point in even mentioning evolution except as science fiction.

1.You assume that random does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Random has not been found. Newton's 3rd Law (did you catch that? LAW) upholds cause and effect. Stick with the law.

asda

2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist.

Perhaps you assume that it does. Evolution in the sense we are talking - evolving from inanimate to human - has not been found. I have listed a few of the reasons why it is impossible. Searching the Net will show you many more.

3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated.

But you avoid the fundamentals of science... science law.

4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution.

The wording, "We still haven't established what we're talking about," is part of the article in one of your links. It shows that the article is useless.

Now, you are trying to apply that wording to things that you and I are discussing. Doing such shows your nefarious intent.

5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong.

A steady stream is not needed, because one broken link in the evolution chain destroys the whole thing. Yet I have shown several. And the Net is full of many more... plus a whole lot of other things that provide a lot of evolution-doubt.

The age of the earth has been proven by many many different methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

The age of the earth has not been proven. Many of the people who have written papers on the age of the earth have said, suggested, or hinted that the only reason they were stating the age of the earth to be as long as they suggested, was to keep continuity among the sciences, so that science could move forward.

The only provable age is not even clear. But, it goes back to between 4,500 and 5,000 years. All the rest of it is theories or guesses, for one reason or another.

Possibly the greatest reason for the guesses about the age of the earth is, nobody knows if the physics of the planet was the same in the past as it is now. And nobody can more than guess how great the differences of past physics might have been. All guesswork.

The best we have is the written record of the Bible... not in a religious sense, but in an eye-witness sense.

Show me those people that you say have written papers just to keep continuity among the sciences, I want proof of that. The age of the earth has been proven, by many methods as I previously stated.

The age of the earth has not been scientifically proven. It has only been evidenced by science.

You want papers? Go look for them. The science I refer to is foundational science law that has been around for ages.

Radiometric dating which uses different radioactive elements that all show the same thing when you measure it. Of course you wouldn't agree with this fact, no surprise there. Obviously the best we have is a book written a few thousand years ago, obviously, hehe. A book that can't be verified whatsoever, that's definitely the best we have.

Of course I agree with the method. The thing that nobody knows is how far into the past was any radiation the same as it is today.

Nobody knows about radiation amounts of the past. This makes radiometrics simply a ploy to distract from the fact that the age of the earth is scientifically unknown. Radiometrics is circular evidence. Google it. You will find many people and sites that explain this.

Say for a moment what you said about randomness is true, nothing is random, all cause and effect, how does that prove God? The only thing you proved is that nothing is random, you don't know if God was the first cause, which God? Maybe it was something else, how can you tell it was God? I would like to know how can you tell it was God

What? You forgot to read info at the links? Here are the links again, in case you can't find them:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Secondly, it seems to be a problem, the bible talks about free will, if there is free will that means human behavior is indeed random, therefore pure randomness does exist, if it didn't that would mean everything you and I will ever do it's already ''written'' meaning that we don't actually have free will, so which one is it?

You are missing one major part about free will. That part is the part of us that has free will. Science has proven long ago that all physical aspects of people operate through cause and effect. The brain is physical. The mind is modified by the brain. So, where is the free will? It truly is there. Go figure out where it is. Or search through my posts to see where it is. I might repeat it sometime. But not right now.

Thirdly, how did creationism help with anything? We based pretty much everything we have today on science, cars, planes, medicine... As far as I know when you get sick you go to the doctor, prayers don't work so well.

You can be ignorant on purpose if that's what you want but evolution is a fact, the evidence and proof is too much to ignore, you can keep lying to yourself but it's the truth.

How in the world ignorant are you? Science has barely increased the lifespan of anyone. And the expense to do it is virtually prohibitive except for the wealthy.

We read just a few weeks ago that David Rockefeller died. He was a billionaire. So, if anybody knew where to look for medical/scientific methods to remain alive, he would be it. But he died... at a mere 101 years old.

Science is so ignorant that dumb nature has secrets locked away so that scientists can't even get down to the basics. But if we went down a little further, we might find out how to live 200 years... which is nothing in the scheme of time.

Mankind can barely build a simple robot that can reproduce itself if given the "raw materials." Ignorant nature contains life procreation on such immense scales that it is mind-boggling.

How dense are you that you can't see that there is intelligence behind nature, and intelligence that is way beyond the intelligence of man.

[Astargath]

Why are you talking about lifespan? I'm talking about medicine in general, of course you can't refute that so you go on a rant about lifespan, what about the other things that I mentioned? You are writing on a computer tanks to science, do you not believe in computers? Evolution is a fact, keep ignoring it but the evidence for it is overwhelming, you just cant accept it for some reason. The age of the earth has been proven countless times and it's also a fact, again you simply ignore it and say it's not true, ''it has only been evidenced by science'' so that's not enough for you? But hey you would rather believe in a book rather than something evidenced by science.

No one knows the radiation in the past you say, you definitely seem extremely skeptic about anything scientific but you easily believe what a book says, makes sense.