Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

Since you aren't talking species to species changes, we won't know what you are talking about until you tell us.

I'm talking about dogs proving evolution - species to species change.

Actually, there isn't even one recorded instance of such. There might be a few assumptions, but no proof.

Actually...

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.

5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = . S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

Just a little google search and here is 2 stinking HOAXes. Wrong methods from 1900. Bad science confirmed to be bad science at 1940 and 1950. And people like Astargath still use them as proofs......

In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.

That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution8,9 reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.10

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Im fairly sure all of them are hoax if given enough time. No need to waste time on this. But if astie insist I will try to find all of them to be just bad science, conscious lies or unconscious.

Most of them debunks themselves. It clearly is not fitting the classical definition of a specie.

Noone is arguing about microevolution. "Some changes" happens within the organisms. Those look like preprogrammed varietes of a specie. So the dogs changing the races does not mean that they are not a dog, and that does not mean that wolf is not a dog. They are all dogs, will remain to be dogs untill end of time. Amen. How do we know it? They can hybridise with fertile offspring. And if hybrids are sterile, they are usualy partialy sterile because of being at one end of ring specie(their variation boundary). Thats was so, when dictionaries were in use. Now we have a postmodernism so everybody has his own definitions.

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

It proves its a ring specie not a new specie. Yes. Ring species exist. Thats not a new specie. That is a proof of creationism. You come to the boundary of variation within a specie. Congratulations ring specie just debunked evolution.

In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

I am not sure if that is not a definition of hoax. Im puzzled.

No facts or evidence..

Do you have any friends around you?..
Well get your both hands and with your 2 hands scratch your armpits and say to a friend or family member what do i look like and if they say a monkey
then what more proof do you need Wink..

That is called impersonating. Behave like a pig and they will tell you, that you are a pig....

Face palm... Really guys.... No comment here.

Yeah just a little google research from : https://creation.com/evolution-by-fiat-and-faith

''creation.com'' I didn't think they would agree lol.

''In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943, 7 more than six decades ago.''

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

[BADecker]

I recently found out Darwin barley obtained his Degree in Liberal Arts. He wasn't even a bondafide scientist. Not that you can't be great with out a degree it's just a detail that everyone should let sink in.

It's not who Darwin is, but what he proved. 

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

[Vod]

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Darwin isn't one of your fairy tales.  He proved evolution.

[adamantasaurus]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

[Przemax]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

[Astargath]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

[Vod]

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

You believe fairy tales are real.  That makes you mad.

[Przemax]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

[Astargath]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Isn't a all knowing all powerful all benevolent god a contradiction to the real world? You know with all the evil things that happen not to mention that he himself kills people? You think evolution is more toxic than religion? I don't see people killing other people in the name of evolution...

[gabmen]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Well there's really no logical alternative to it though. It's not as if its more realistic to believe that we magically came from ashes. Weigh in all the theories of how we came to be and evolution would still the easiest thing to reality

[BADecker]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Isn't a all knowing all powerful all benevolent god a contradiction to the real world?

No, because you are considering it way too simplistically. The exact reasons why God is doing things this way are probably beyond our understanding, like God is.

In the end, the thing that He is doing is making people who will be on His side, in favor of Him, while allowing them to be this way by their own free choosing of it. Yet He is doing it in a way that those who choose to be against Him will have had ample opportunity and warning that they are destroying themselves by freely and willingly choosing to be against Him.

Such is benevolence way beyond any kind of benevolence you or I would consider for our enemies.

You know with all the evil things that happen not to mention that he himself kills people?

When God kills people, He does it with full rights to His property. Be glad that He is offering you a big bunch of opportunity to be on His side, as well as live a life, here, in reasonable freedom. He loves you that much, but actually, way more.

He sees that you just might change. But if you don't change to be on His side, He is allowing you the time to build up great destruction for yourself... the thing you seem to be asking for.

You think evolution is more toxic than religion? I don't see people killing other people in the name of evolution...

Toxicity in the evolution religion is far greater than in the Christian religion. Everyone dies in this life that we know of. The evolution religion keeps people from finding the way to eternal life in love, joy, peace, and greatness with God. The Christian religion provides its believers with joyful eternal life.

[BADecker]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Well there's really no logical alternative to it though. It's not as if its more realistic to believe that we magically came from ashes. Weigh in all the theories of how we came to be and evolution would still the easiest thing to reality

Science is finding great technology in life and nature. Things in nature are put together in ways that it is difficult for mankind to duplicate. Here is a question to play with:

Why is the complex technology of nature so extremely complex, while the far less complex things that man produces are not made in nature?

Consider the automobile. The technology therein is millions of times less than that which is in a flower. Yet we don't see nature making any cars... even though the technology in a rock might be way less than that which is in a car. Why doesn't nature make cars?

The point is, the designer of both, the car and nature, have different goals in mind. Which designer is greater? The designer of the car? The designer of nature? All technology takes a designer to put the idea for it together.

[taidanaxD]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

I agree with you. If that theory is true there will me no monkey around the world by now.

[Przemax]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

I agree with you. If that theory is true there will me no monkey around the world by now.

That kind of arguments makes evolutionist feel smart, because he can have the answer for such a questions. He can say that we had not came from monkey that are in existence. You see? It was created out of this world. Makes sense? Confused person would agree it makes sense because that had answered his question of why monkeys are still monkeys. Its not those monkeys. It's like an Obi-wan talking to the stormtrooper "it's not the drones you were looking for".

The problem is different. Where is this evidence of this ancestral primate that monkey and human supposedly came from. I am being paranoidal from time to time, right in this case.

My paranoia in this case is that, its a conscious social engineering, that you have to first popularise such a low hanging fruit in society as the quote above, to have a population of evolutionist trolls feeding on such a low hanging fruits. The best if the low hanging fruits are some low inteligent catholics, that would breed hate into the evolutionist trolls against God.

[adamantasaurus]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

I agree with you. If that theory is true there will me no monkey around the world by now.

That kind of arguments makes evolutionist feel smart, because he can have the answer for such a questions. He can say that we had not came from monkey that are in existence. You see? It was created out of this world. Makes sense? Confused person would agree it makes sense because that had answered his question of why monkeys are still monkeys. Its not those monkeys. It's like an Obi-wan talking to the stormtrooper "it's not the drones you were looking for".

The problem is different. Where is this evidence of this ancestral primate that monkey and human supposedly came from. I am being paranoidal from time to time, right in this case.

My paranoia in this case is that, its a conscious social engineering, that you have to first popularise such a low hanging fruit in society as the quote above, to have a population of evolutionist trolls feeding on such a low hanging fruits. The best if the low hanging fruits are some low inteligent catholics, that would breed hate into the evolutionist trolls against God.

I'm sorry man but I can prove to you with 10000% accuracy that your religion, your beliefs, and your absurd belief in the fact that humans have been magically created by some man in a sky. I can prove it to anyone that has their mind open enough to possibly look beyond their own biases and "ENTERTAIN" the fact that what they believe MAY not be the truth. You don't know anything your just regurgitating what other people in your faith have taught you, you do not have original thoughts or Ideas just a bunch of garbage spewed out by the same people over and over......

[Przemax]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

I agree with you. If that theory is true there will me no monkey around the world by now.

That kind of arguments makes evolutionist feel smart, because he can have the answer for such a questions. He can say that we had not came from monkey that are in existence. You see? It was created out of this world. Makes sense? Confused person would agree it makes sense because that had answered his question of why monkeys are still monkeys. Its not those monkeys. It's like an Obi-wan talking to the stormtrooper "it's not the drones you were looking for".

The problem is different. Where is this evidence of this ancestral primate that monkey and human supposedly came from. I am being paranoidal from time to time, right in this case.

My paranoia in this case is that, its a conscious social engineering, that you have to first popularise such a low hanging fruit in society as the quote above, to have a population of evolutionist trolls feeding on such a low hanging fruits. The best if the low hanging fruits are some low inteligent catholics, that would breed hate into the evolutionist trolls against God.

I'm sorry man but I can prove to you with 10000% accuracy that your religion, your beliefs, and your absurd belief in the fact that humans have been magically created by some man in a sky. I can prove it to anyone that has their mind open enough to possibly look beyond their own biases and "ENTERTAIN" the fact that what they believe MAY not be the truth. You don't know anything your just regurgitating what other people in your faith have taught you, you do not have original thoughts or Ideas just a bunch of garbage spewed out by the same people over and over......

Yes. I know. I have an open mind that evolution might be true. Right now I would have to believe it, and it would be really hard for me to believe in this. It makes no sense.

Creation story makes sense, as its not involved such a high improbability. It only involves of something that is like your magical ancestral monkey only.

I would rather believe a magical God, than a magical ancestral monkey, that probability to happen is so low that its more miraculous than divine intervention.

[BADecker]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

I agree with you. If that theory is true there will me no monkey around the world by now.

That kind of arguments makes evolutionist feel smart, because he can have the answer for such a questions. He can say that we had not came from monkey that are in existence. You see? It was created out of this world. Makes sense? Confused person would agree it makes sense because that had answered his question of why monkeys are still monkeys. Its not those monkeys. It's like an Obi-wan talking to the stormtrooper "it's not the drones you were looking for".

The problem is different. Where is this evidence of this ancestral primate that monkey and human supposedly came from. I am being paranoidal from time to time, right in this case.

My paranoia in this case is that, its a conscious social engineering, that you have to first popularise such a low hanging fruit in society as the quote above, to have a population of evolutionist trolls feeding on such a low hanging fruits. The best if the low hanging fruits are some low inteligent catholics, that would breed hate into the evolutionist trolls against God.

I'm sorry man but I can prove to you with 10000% accuracy that your religion, your beliefs, and your absurd belief in the fact that humans have been magically created by some man in a sky. I can prove it to anyone that has their mind open enough to possibly look beyond their own biases and "ENTERTAIN" the fact that what they believe MAY not be the truth. You don't know anything your just regurgitating what other people in your faith have taught you, you do not have original thoughts or Ideas just a bunch of garbage spewed out by the same people over and over......

Cause and effect are possibly the most basic of all sciences. Virtually all scientific investigation is based on C&E. We see C&E in billions of things on earth. We witness it happening among the stars. We have found nothing that contradicts it. All we have found so far is that we don't know the causes of everything. But, if the future is anything like the past, all we will find are causes for everything else we look into scientifically.

Pick up a handful of sand. Throw it into the air. The pattern that the sand produces when it falls to the ground is quite complex. There were many forces acting on that sand. But, all those forces were "programmed" into place by whatever set cause and effect up in the first place.

Will your handful of sand ever produce enough complexity that it will become alive someday? We don't know. But probably not. However, if it does, it was all programmed to happen like that, through cause and effect, by whatever set up C&E in the first place.

How do you get life, the human brain, the human mind, intelligence, emotion, spirit and soul, by random chance? There is absolutely nothing in the experience of human kind that suggests you can get these things by accident. C&E shows that everything has been programmed. Programming means a Programmer. And a Programmer that can program through C&E to make a universe like we have, is Almighty God way beyond any God we could predict or imagine God to be like.

[Astargath]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Isn't a all knowing all powerful all benevolent god a contradiction to the real world?

No, because you are considering it way too simplistically. The exact reasons why God is doing things this way are probably beyond our understanding, like God is.

In the end, the thing that He is doing is making people who will be on His side, in favor of Him, while allowing them to be this way by their own free choosing of it. Yet He is doing it in a way that those who choose to be against Him will have had ample opportunity and warning that they are destroying themselves by freely and willingly choosing to be against Him.

Such is benevolence way beyond any kind of benevolence you or I would consider for our enemies.

You know with all the evil things that happen not to mention that he himself kills people?

When God kills people, He does it with full rights to His property. Be glad that He is offering you a big bunch of opportunity to be on His side, as well as live a life, here, in reasonable freedom. He loves you that much, but actually, way more.

He sees that you just might change. But if you don't change to be on His side, He is allowing you the time to build up great destruction for yourself... the thing you seem to be asking for.

You think evolution is more toxic than religion? I don't see people killing other people in the name of evolution...

Toxicity in the evolution religion is far greater than in the Christian religion. Everyone dies in this life that we know of. The evolution religion keeps people from finding the way to eternal life in love, joy, peace, and greatness with God. The Christian religion provides its believers with joyful eternal life.

So I guess it's ok if I have children and I kill them because they are my property.

I was a christian and stopped believing in nonsense not because of evolution. In fact as I said earlier all science could be wrong, that would not mean god is right and I'm sure most atheists think the same.

[Astargath]

If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.

Well there's really no logical alternative to it though. It's not as if its more realistic to believe that we magically came from ashes. Weigh in all the theories of how we came to be and evolution would still the easiest thing to reality

Science is finding great technology in life and nature. Things in nature are put together in ways that it is difficult for mankind to duplicate. Here is a question to play with:

Why is the complex technology of nature so extremely complex, while the far less complex things that man produces are not made in nature?

Consider the automobile. The technology therein is millions of times less than that which is in a flower. Yet we don't see nature making any cars... even though the technology in a rock might be way less than that which is in a car. Why doesn't nature make cars?

The point is, the designer of both, the car and nature, have different goals in mind. Which designer is greater? The designer of the car? The designer of nature? All technology takes a designer to put the idea for it together.

Yeah, the point is that you ignored his post. You are rambling about things that have nothing to do with what he said. How do you define complex and how do you calculate the grade of complexity of something. Is it really millions of times less?

Cars have designers therefore nature also has designers is a fallacy, assumption based on nothing.

[mirror001]

Development present and we can watch it in our time period. Take a gander at the general population in the 50s of the most recent century and present-day individuals. Presently the adolescent develops and they are significantly higher. Youngsters begin to sit and walk quicker. This is a case of advancement on a short stage. On the off chance that even creationists are getting included with Bitcoins, this is a decent indication of the developing enthusiasm of digital currencies. At the point when even moronic individuals are utilizing BTC, it implies everybody can (and will) do it.