Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

As previously said, evolution has been applied to numerous advancements in science, creationism has not.

No evolution has ever been applied to any science. Some people might have said that it has. But since evolution is a theory, nobody knows that evolution could be applied to anything.

Creationism in fact hasn't been applied to anything because it doesn't work.

Wrong. Creationism hasn't been applied to anything by people, because people are too backward to make it work.

Evolution is true and that's why it can be applied to different things.

Your explanations show that evolution doesn't work. They are circular reference explanations, or theoretical rather than factual explanations. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg19425410#msg19425410.

You can deny evolution as much as you want to try to fit your religion. The truth is that even religious people accept evolution, 77% of jewish accept it and even 60% of catholics and that was from a study in 2007 so I can assume the number is around 70% of catholics now or even higher and it will just keep growing.

That's why the evolution religion resorts to the treachery of changing semantics in the terms it uses. Evolutionists can't make evolution even appear a little truthful in any other way.

It's no surprise that religious people have, in general, lower IQ.

You said it. And on the scale of lowest IQ are those who believe the religion of evolution to be true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

The links are simply anti-God links. They prove nothing.

Prove it, prove that evolution hasn't been applied to anything, if you say they are lying, prove it. Thanks for agreeing that creationism is in fact useless to people. As I said, you have to ignore, as you are doing all the applications because you have to in order to keep denying the truth. I'm sorry for you. You will eventually wake up to reality.

I have done way more than that. I have explained to you how cause and effect proves that there isn't any evolution, because there isn't any random.

Now, if evolution operates without random, it is a form of evolution that isn't expressed anywhere.

Your turn. Show me.

First of all, that's a lie. Radioactive decay is considered random. Also, since you believe in the Bible and it says humans have free will, we should be random, human behavior has to be random in order to have free will. You can't have both, if nothing is random, free will can't exist either.

You talk so silly. Radioactive decay follows precise laws of physics. Are you trying to say that radio-carbon dating is completely random? No wonder scientists all over the place come up with different ages for the earth and universe   You contradict yourself so much that you are becoming a joke.

I have explained in the past how free will is controlled by God to be free will at the same time it is completely cause and effect action set up by God.

Just to make you happy, though, I will admit that pure random DOES exist in one place. Pure random exists within God. He uses it as He wants. And the way He wants right now is to use it to control all universal cause and effect in the way we see the universe working.

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

[1714860082]

1714860082

[1714860082]

1714860082

[1714860082]

1714860082

[BADecker]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

[Lancusters]

In this world nothing happens by accident. Everything has its own pattern. This is what scientists prove. Possible carbon or radiation method is not the most accurate method of determining the age of the earth, but scientists do not say that their opinion is 100% true. I no longer believe scientists because their explanations are logic. Those who believe in God have no logic, but simply trying to impose their views.

[Astargath]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

[BADecker]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

Being predictable by humans doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are the effects of causes.

[Astargath]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

Being predictable by humans doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are the effects of causes.

Still a fallacy, the randomness problem is still being debated. You can't say everything has a cause because you don't know that, at least not now.

[BADecker]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

Being predictable by humans doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are the effects of causes.

Still a fallacy, the randomness problem is still being debated. You can't say everything has a cause because you don't know that, at least not now.

It is true that nobody can say that anything is an absolute, absolute certainty. Here is the difference, and a simple one.

Cause and effect are scientifically accepted as an absolute. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. If not 100% of scientists use it in their scientific investigations, there is such a tiny sliver of 1% that don't, that you might as well say it's 100%.

Evolution is considered a theory.

Scientific theory may not mean the same thing as regular theory. But what scientific theory has to do with is judgment regarding the probability regarding the probability (<<< not a typo) that something is true. Thus means that it is a consensus of those who want it to be factual. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it actually IS factual.

But regarding evolution, there are so many things that show that it is false, that at best, even if you considered the things that seem to make sense, evolution should be dropped as a scientific theory, and relegated to the realm of science ideas.

[Squishy01]

Humans did not come from monkeys. The saying may be famous, but it is wrong to say that we descended from monkeys. The monkeys today and us humans have one common ancestor, and those are the Austrolopethicus and the other hominids. The reason why there are still monkeys today is that some time in the past, they branched of from our roots. Environment, lifestyle, everything affected their evolution, just as how ours affected our evolution. Some evolved into monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees and etc. while we evolved into Homo Sapien Sapiens. There are a lot of proof that this is true, not only in our species but in other animals as well. I would recommend reading on Charles Darwin and other evolution theorists. The scientific community has studied this rigorously and is now accepted internationally.

[Astargath]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

Being predictable by humans doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are the effects of causes.

Still a fallacy, the randomness problem is still being debated. You can't say everything has a cause because you don't know that, at least not now.

It is true that nobody can say that anything is an absolute, absolute certainty. Here is the difference, and a simple one.

Cause and effect are scientifically accepted as an absolute. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. If not 100% of scientists use it in their scientific investigations, there is such a tiny sliver of 1% that don't, that you might as well say it's 100%.

Evolution is considered a theory.

Scientific theory may not mean the same thing as regular theory. But what scientific theory has to do with is judgment regarding the probability regarding the probability (<<< not a typo) that something is true. Thus means that it is a consensus of those who want it to be factual. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it actually IS factual.

But regarding evolution, there are so many things that show that it is false, that at best, even if you considered the things that seem to make sense, evolution should be dropped as a scientific theory, and relegated to the realm of science ideas.

It's ok badecker, you already showed what your intentions are on the ''scientific proof that god exists'' thread. You already admitted that you don't know that God exists and you just believe in him. Same thing happens with evolution, you are just another typical religious person, I honestly expected more from you when I started debating with you on the other thread but you finally proved what you really are. Another brainwashed religious guy. Pathetic...

[BADecker]

It has a predictable decay rate but you can't know exactly when a given nucleus will decay,  you can only predict the probability that it will decay in a given time period.
Explain again how you can have free will at the same time.

There was a time when people didn't know that there was radioactive decay. There are multitudes of things that are predictable, but we just don't know how to do them, yet.

You figure the free will thing out. I have said it enough times in this forum.

We have evolutionists who try to do impossible things, and then they tell us lies.

Fallacy. You can't know if they really are predictable.

Being predictable by humans doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are the effects of causes.

Still a fallacy, the randomness problem is still being debated. You can't say everything has a cause because you don't know that, at least not now.

It is true that nobody can say that anything is an absolute, absolute certainty. Here is the difference, and a simple one.

Cause and effect are scientifically accepted as an absolute. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. If not 100% of scientists use it in their scientific investigations, there is such a tiny sliver of 1% that don't, that you might as well say it's 100%.

Evolution is considered a theory.

Scientific theory may not mean the same thing as regular theory. But what scientific theory has to do with is judgment regarding the probability regarding the probability (<<< not a typo) that something is true. Thus means that it is a consensus of those who want it to be factual. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it actually IS factual.

But regarding evolution, there are so many things that show that it is false, that at best, even if you considered the things that seem to make sense, evolution should be dropped as a scientific theory, and relegated to the realm of science ideas.

It's ok badecker, you already showed what your intentions are on the ''scientific proof that god exists'' thread. You already admitted that you don't know that God exists and you just believe in him. Same thing happens with evolution, you are just another typical religious person, I honestly expected more from you when I started debating with you on the other thread but you finally proved what you really are. Another brainwashed religious guy. Pathetic...

Now that is remarkable. I show you some of the most solid science around, and you call it religion.

Most evolutionists don't come this close to calling evolution religion, directly. But, thank you for being a little more clear on your religious beliefs.

While I don't respect your silly evolution, anti-God religion, I still hold respect for you as a person.

[Lenzie]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

I don't believe in this theory either. I don't believe that long ago we came from nothing. Something must have created us or experimented to creat us. Or there might be some other explanation.

[ecnalubma]

Maybe because theory are just theory they only rely on evidences they had gathered. I think there's no evolution at all. We are humans when we appear on earth not sort of monkeys that's just dont make sense to me.

[Xester]

Maybe because theory are just theory they only rely on evidences they had gathered. I think there's no evolution at all. We are humans when we appear on earth not sort of monkeys that's just dont make sense to me.

I hundred percent agree with you.  Theory is just a theory, that is why it is called evolution theory.  It was all based on their endless studies.  It is absurd that because there were parts of us that similar to the monkeys they said that we belong to them. 

[flekkelek]

Maybe because theory are just theory they only rely on evidences they had gathered. I think there's no evolution at all. We are humans when we appear on earth not sort of monkeys that's just dont make sense to me.

I hundred percent agree with you.  Theory is just a theory, that is why it is called evolution theory.  It was all based on their endless studies.  It is absurd that because there were parts of us that similar to the monkeys they said that we belong to them. 

Monkeys? What? We have similarities to primates because we had a COMMON progenitor. That's the theory, not that we are originated from the "monkeys".

[BADecker]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

[freeyourmind]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

[Limbor]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

[Kronos21]

Evolution affects people differently. If you do not have wings they do not grow, but if you have wings and you don't use them,it is likely they eventually will begin to disappear.

[freeyourmind]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

What would be the purpose for a person to have horns or wings?  And would that be desirable for breeding?  I'm assuming it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need a practical answer

I would think that if survival and spreading seeds is the goal, as it seems to be for living things, then with natural selection, you'd want the most advantages to be able to survive.  The species would move towards breeding with those that have useful characteristics, and away from those that do not possess those useful characteristics, or be challenged with the competition of survival with less tools.

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

If you believe everything was created this way, then so be it.  Totally cool with me

[BADecker]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

What would be the purpose for a person to have horns or wings?  And would that be desirable for breeding?  I'm assuming it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need a practical answer

I would think that if survival and spreading seeds is the goal, as it seems to be for living things, then with natural selection, you'd want the most advantages to be able to survive.  The species would move towards breeding with those that have useful characteristics, and away from those that do not possess those useful characteristics, or be challenged with the competition of survival with less tools.

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

If you believe everything was created this way, then so be it.  Totally cool with me

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.