Evolution is a hoax

[popcorn1]

Is this possible ?

Aliens could of planted magic stuff and watched it grow and here we are today getting watched by aliens..

Did we evolve on land sea or on rocks moss trees a pond a river ?..

Or did we evolve on this planet and the stuff made from this planet is the same as the next planet..
I.E did aliens take a bag of soil from their planet and drop it off on this planet seeding our world..

Also is another world the same as our world if in the same galaxy ..
Big bang so made of the same stuff?..

Then is aliens walking around us and we don't know ..
Then is all what we know not real and we live in the matrix..
Or are we a computer program ..

Did we die many many light years ago and this is all a program..
Floating in empty space a little chip with all of life programmed into the chip ..

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

See people say we cannot come from a monkey ..Because god made us ..

And the fact an ape and human cannot have babies why can we not say we are not from a monkey?..

Toads", as commonly used, are not a monophyletic grouping - that is, all toads do not descend from a single common ancestor which only produced other toads. ... As a polyphyletic group, the parsimonious assumption is that various species of toads evolved from frogs on multiple occasions.

So a toad is not a frog but it come from a frog meaning a god never changed it to a toad it evolved
from a frog into a toad..

Like we evolved from a monkey into a human?..same as toad and frog?..

I am not saying your wrong because by the sounds of things your sure know what your talking about..
But all the same we both agree evolution is real no hoax ..

Made by this creator the earth ..Yes could of been seeded but we evolved on this earth..

Or have you got another way how we come to be I.E evolved..

[rommil]

Because it was sort of seperation of species. Why some aborigens remained wild while Europe was already developed?

[BADecker]

Except for one major thing. Every last point/thing/reason-why/suggestion-about/supposed-proof-for LUCA can be explained as something or many things other than LUCA. LUCA is entirely speculation.

[BADecker]

Monkeys and Apes cannot breed because of genetic differences, the differences in modern humans, e.g. differences in race, skin colour, muscle tone, intelligence, creativity etc, may be due in part to the percentages of sapiens, erectus, and neanderthalis DNA.

In the same way that you say "... may be due in part to ...," is the same speculation for the whole idea of LUCA. Evolution scientists say it all the time in their writings.

[BADecker]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

[Parodium]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

[Xester]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Exactly that is why it is just a theory.  It is a complete theory or analysis or guess by the scientist which does not occur.  It is a pure scientific guess on how this one creature became like this because of the evolution theory.  The thinking that we came from monkeys are really absurd.  All the gorillas or monkeys in the cage should become humans right now.

[Astargath]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Like what? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg25582231#msg25582231

Don't be delusional, admit you lost, you have no arguments, all of them are lies.

[Parodium]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Exactly that is why it is just a theory.  It is a complete theory or analysis or guess by the scientist which does not occur.  It is a pure scientific guess on how this one creature became like this because of the evolution theory.  The thinking that we came from monkeys are really absurd.  All the gorillas or monkeys in the cage should become humans right now.

What a ridiculous response, I notice that all those respondants clearly have no idea what the actual theory of evolution is.

NOBODY said we evolved from monkeys, monkeys, apes and humans share a common ancestor, meaning we all evolved from a common ancestor, and obviously diverged along that path.

Interesting how religiosity and low intelligence are positively correlated.

[BADecker]

Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?

''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''

You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2


You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind

Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.

What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.

Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.

There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.

Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.

What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).

A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.

[BADecker]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Like what? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg25582231#msg25582231

Don't be delusional, admit you lost, you have no arguments, all of them are lies.

The interesting thing is that you can't explain what your links are talking about. But I can and do explain what I am talking about all the time.

You are like a little child, always deriding someone else, but never saying why, because you simply don't know what any of it is really about.

[Parodium]

Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?

''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''

You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2


You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind

Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.

What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.

Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.

There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.

Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.

What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).

A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.

Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.

Religion claims to KNOW the answers, just like the ancient greeks KNEW Helios pulled the sun across the sky with his chariot, and that Atlas held the world upon his shoulders. Just like the Hindus offered sacrifices to Indra to make it rain, because they knew Indra controls the condensation evaporation cycle. You theists sure seem to know a lot of BS.

[BADecker]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

Thank you.

Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.

[BADecker]

Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?

''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''

You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2


You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind

Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.

What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.

Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.

There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.

Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.

What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).

A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.

Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.

You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.

The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.

[Parodium]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

Thank you.

Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.

I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.

[Parodium]

Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?

''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''

You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2


You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind

Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.

What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.

Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.

There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.

Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.

What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).

A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.

Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.

You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.

The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.

You keep on banging on about evolution being false because we can't explain the exact way it came about due to cause and effect, and yet you believe in the unmoved mover fallacy.

Your God, supposedly eternal, immutable and without cause, the uncaused origin of everything..... Doesn't that seem hypocritical?

[BADecker]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

Thank you.

Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.

I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.

But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.

Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.

[BADecker]

Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?

''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''

You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2


You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind

Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.

What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.

Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.

There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.

Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.

What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).

A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.

Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.

You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.

The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.

You keep on banging on about evolution being false because we can't explain the exact way it came about due to cause and effect, and yet you believe in the unmoved mover fallacy.

Your God, supposedly eternal, immutable and without cause, the uncaused origin of everything..... Doesn't that seem hypocritical?

That's because this thread is about the religion known as evolution. How do you - yes, I mean you, - prove it is a religion? Because if you can't explain it, you have to believe in it. If you want to talk about God, why don't you do it in a thread about God?

[Parodium]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

Thank you.

Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.

I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.

But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.

Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.

There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.

[BADecker]

These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.

The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.

Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.

Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.

Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.

Thank you.

Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.

I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.

But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.

Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.

There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.

If random is not opposite of cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.

As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.

You just flunked basic science, right along with the evolution scientists.