Evolution is a hoax

[Daniel91]

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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

[1715432014]

1715432014

[1715432014]

1715432014

[1715432014]

1715432014

[af_newbie]

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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

Religion does not explain what happened before the Big Bang.  Religion tells you.  It raises more questions than it answers.

Religion provides answers.  Unfortunately the answers cannot be validated.

[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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

Talking about something is not explaining it. The bible has no idea about the big bang nor what happened before, you chose to believe the bible, why? There are other religious books that also explain the universe by your understanding, why the bible? Why not Zeus? They also explain how the universe is created.

Evolution is a fact, you can say whatever you want but it's an extremely well documented fact.

[joebrook]

If the theory of evolution is correct then we will continue to evolve and change, that means human will evolve into another stage possibly with longer necks and metallic skin. Why haven't three been any evolution in the last 1000 - 2000 years.

[af_newbie]

If the theory of evolution is correct then we will continue to evolve and change, that means human will evolve into another stage possibly with longer necks and metallic skin. Why haven't three been any evolution in the last 1000 - 2000 years.

Nature keeps working, no matter what you believe.

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-unusual-genetic-mutations-in-humans-470843733

[Astargath]

If the theory of evolution is correct then we will continue to evolve and change, that means human will evolve into another stage possibly with longer necks and metallic skin. Why haven't three been any evolution in the last 1000 - 2000 years.

 We are actually still evolving though, In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy.

Why don't you try to read before posting something like that? And no one said something must evolve within 1000-2000 years, some things take much longer than that to evolve, some may not evolve at all.

[DarkKnight68]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

[exemplaar]

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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

Religion does not explain what happened before the Big Bang.  Religion tells you.  It raises more questions than it answers.

Religion provides answers.  Unfortunately the answers cannot be validated.

[BADecker]

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.

I'm talking about lifespan, to show you two things:
1. How greatly complex the universe is, and;
2. How feeble our greatest efforts are.

What do you think I am trying to refute? Medicine in general has found out a lot of information. Outside of a few corrections in disease, what has medicine really given us? Very little. Why? Because the complexity of the universe is way beyond what we are able to accomplish. We barely have been able to figure out much of anything compared with what there is to know.

Mostly the things of nature in general are so complex, that if used like they could be, they would far surpass the greatest accomplishments in current modern medicine. Surpass in what way? In benefits for the people, rather than amassing wealth for Big Pharma.

If evolution means the conversion, over time, of inorganic to today's human and other life, evolution is a complete lie. Perpetrating this lie on people makes the lie a hoax. How do we know it is a lie? Check out all the websites that show the various reasons why evolution is impossible. I have listed a few, basic reasons in this and other threads.

Nobody knows that there was any C-4 in the atmosphere, say, beyond 5,000 years ago. If there wasn't, that would throw all of our carbon dating dates off by millions or billions of years. Similar unknowns exist in all the fields of scientific time measurement except one. Can you guess which one that is? It shows that the earth is for sure 4,500 to 5,000 years old. Science is flawed in determining the age of the universe. True Earth age is completely unknown by current scientific methods. They are all guesses.

[BADecker]

If the theory of evolution is correct then we will continue to evolve and change, that means human will evolve into another stage possibly with longer necks and metallic skin. Why haven't three been any evolution in the last 1000 - 2000 years.

 We are actually still evolving though, In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy.

Why don't you try to read before posting something like that? And no one said something must evolve within 1000-2000 years, some things take much longer than that to evolve, some may not evolve at all.

If evolution means the conversion, over time, of inorganic to today's human and other life, evolution is a complete lie. The truth is that, because of detrimental mutations (a beneficial mutation has never been seen), we are devolving.

The term "natural selection" indicates free will in nature. Has science been saying that nature is alive all along? That would indicate God.

Changes are due to cause and effect. They are programmed in. Nothing random ever happens. Every happening has at least one cause that makes it happen. There is no proof of even one random happenstance, but there are easily provable cause and effect operations acting all around us all the time.

[BADecker]

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

[af_newbie]

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

Religion  will be obsolete in few hundred years.  For small percentage of population it already is.

Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks.

Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that.

[Astargath]

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

Religion  will be obsolete in few hundred years.  For small percentage of population it already is.

Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks.

Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that.

Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years.

Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. 
Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time.  Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.

And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual.


Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are.

[Daniel91]

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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

Religion does not explain what happened before the Big Bang.  Religion tells you.  It raises more questions than it answers.

Religion provides answers.  Unfortunately the answers cannot be validated.

Religion very well explained the beginning of the universe and life, long before science could explained it.
All process of creation is very well explained in Genesis.
God first created universe or sky.
After that, water, land, animals and on the end man.
How people could know it 6000 years ago?
No way!
Science can just explain universe after big bang, creation.
Before it, beyond time and space and before creation, there is no natural laws to explore, nothing, only God.
So, if time and space didn't exist, natural laws to, it's obvious that science can't explain or prove it.
Only creator can.

[BADecker]

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

Religion  will be obsolete in few hundred years.  For small percentage of population it already is. - Whatever "code" a person lives his life by is his religion. The only time religion could be gone is with the destruction of all people.

Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. - Find the right rocks, and you can take the material out of them and develop a computer.

Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that.

Show us a tree older than 7,000 years and the proof that it is that old.

[BADecker]

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.

Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution?
Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe.
Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can.
Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day.
So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation.
In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion.
Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation.
Science can't explain it.
Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece.
God used evolution in his creation.

Religion does not explain what happened before the Big Bang.  Religion tells you.  It raises more questions than it answers.

Religion provides answers.  Unfortunately the answers cannot be validated.

Religion very well explained the beginning of the universe and life, long before science could explained it.
All process of creation is very well explained in Genesis.
God first created universe or sky.
After that, water, land, animals and on the end man.
How people could know it 6000 years ago?
No way!
Science can just explain universe after big bang, creation.
Before it, beyond time and space and before creation, there is no natural laws to explore, nothing, only God.
So, if time and space didn't exist, natural laws to, it's obvious that science can't explain or prove it.
Only creator can.

However, big bang is make-believe. Science theory is incomplete science.

[BADecker]

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

Religion  will be obsolete in few hundred years.  For small percentage of population it already is.

Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks.

Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that.

Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years.

Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. 
Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time.  Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.

And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual.


Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are.

All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork.

Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

As I said in my previous post, above, nobody knows the true age of this tree, because nature may have operated differently in the past than it does now.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a place that anybody can put himself into the position of posting something. It's a good place to start... to get a basic idea. But it can't be relied on for absolute factual truth.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

As I said in my previous post, above, nobody knows the true age of this tree, because nature may have operated differently in the past than it does now.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a place that anybody can place himself inot the position fo posting something. It's a good place to start... to get a basic idea. but it can't be relied on for absolute factal truth.

So update the Wikipedia if you have any objections to its age.  Provide your source.

The evidence with Wikipedia is that, the articles that are re-updated by those who have an agenda, when anybody updates it with things that make sense. So, updating wouldn't make iny difference. It would simply be changed back.

The source is the fact that nobody knows what happened in the distant past. Using the make-believe ideas about the distant past to prove something, only proves that such a user is being deceptive. It is circular reasoning.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

As I said in my previous post, above, nobody knows the true age of this tree, because nature may have operated differently in the past than it does now.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a place that anybody can place himself inot the position fo posting something. It's a good place to start... to get a basic idea. but it can't be relied on for absolute factal truth.

So update the Wikipedia if you have any objections to its age.  Provide your source.

The evidence with Wikipedia is that, the articles that are re-updated by those who have an agenda, when anybody updates it with things that make sense. So, updating wouldn't make iny difference. It would simply be changed back.

The source is the fact that nobody knows what happened in the distant past. Using the make-believe ideas about the distant past to prove something, only proves that such a user is being deceptive. It is circular reasoning.

By this logic, we can erase all history.  Not sure why would you believe in some myths written by 40+ people, revised and canonized in some dark room in Nicaea by some old men.  And not believe a physical living tree.

Just travel to Sweden and inspect the tree yourself.  I'm sure they have an exhibit to show you all the tree rings.

If you stop giving money to your church, in a year or so, you'll have enough money to travel to Sweden and put your delusion to rest.

Wow! You are starting to catch on a little.

As Stalin said words to the effect of, "It's not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes," even so, the victors in the battles are the ones who write the histories. Historical writings need to be compared over many areas, and against traditions of the people, to get somewhat of an accurate picture of what happened in the past.

Tree ring accuracy may be able to be shown for the last few hundred years. But it isn't known to have always acted that way.

If you start giving money to God, you might never have enough money to travel the world. But God might be grateful enough that He will allow you to find faith in Him so that you are saved.