Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please.

First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either.

Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible.

[1715689499]

1715689499

[1715689499]

1715689499

[1715689499]

1715689499

[1715689499]

1715689499

[1715689499]

1715689499

[Astargath]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please.

First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either.

Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible.

Nothing is known to be factual 100% I don't really see your point here. Things in nature like what? I'm still waiting for the examples of spontaneous generation of complex life as you claim god did.

[ModGrip]

How is this even a debat....oh wait...yup.....people are idiots. 

[BADecker]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please.

First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either.

Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible.

Nothing is known to be factual 100% I don't really see your point here. Things in nature like what? I'm still waiting for the examples of spontaneous generation of complex life as you claim god did.

So, we might have a few trees that have been alive for hundreds of years. Why are you waiting for examples of the spontaneous making of complex life that God did? That was 6,000 years ago. If you think any of them are still alive, go out and find them, and the proof that the ones you find are really the ones.

I don't see your point here. You continually ask for things that I have shown many times. All you need to do is Google some wording regarding the impossibility of evolution to find many answers to your question. And if you read the supposed rebuttals to the impossibility, you will see that they don't make sense, or that they circular thinking, or that they are based on other things that aren't known to be factual.

It's kinda like that other thread, where you ask for the definition of machine. Do you really live in a country where they don't have any dictionaries? Is your Internet so limited that you can't really Google anything? I don't think you are in a funny farm like those guys in that other thread. But I am beginning to question my own thinking on that point.

[Vod]

there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?

There is no evidence of that.    

Next time your drunk uncle whispers something in your ear, ask him to back it up with facts.

[Astargath]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please.

First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either.

Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible.

Nothing is known to be factual 100% I don't really see your point here. Things in nature like what? I'm still waiting for the examples of spontaneous generation of complex life as you claim god did.

So, we might have a few trees that have been alive for hundreds of years. Why are you waiting for examples of the spontaneous making of complex life that God did? That was 6,000 years ago. If you think any of them are still alive, go out and find them, and the proof that the ones you find are really the ones.

I don't see your point here. You continually ask for things that I have shown many times. All you need to do is Google some wording regarding the impossibility of evolution to find many answers to your question. And if you read the supposed rebuttals to the impossibility, you will see that they don't make sense, or that they circular thinking, or that they are based on other things that aren't known to be factual.

It's kinda like that other thread, where you ask for the definition of machine. Do you really live in a country where they don't have any dictionaries? Is your Internet so limited that you can't really Google anything? I don't think you are in a funny farm like those guys in that other thread. But I am beginning to question my own thinking on that point.

Ok ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Therefore the universe is not a machine so it doesn't need a maker, thanks for clarifying that you are wrong then.

[protokol]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

[Philip Graham]

I do not believe in the theory of evolution , Because the theory is not clear

[Astargath]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

And I'm asking for evidence that it happened, I know no one can go back in time to see it happen, no one can go back in time to see evolution happening that's why we have evidence that points to evolution. If all the evidence that points to evolution is wrong it would be logical to at least have the same amount of evidence for the spontaneous generation of life which is what is claimed to be true, how is it possible to have 0 evidence for what is supposed to be true and a ton of evidence for what is supposed to be a hoax. Weird

[Bitcoininspace]

One of earths great unanswerable questions. I dont think evolution is a hoax. What is more likely to be a hoax is that outlandish religious story that a person had 40 animals on a boat for

months at at time. Oh and did I forget to mention this ship was huge and these people did not have master craftman skills. That is the true hoax my good people, such rubbish

I'm agree. Scientists also prove evolution ambiguously

[BADecker]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

Where does Astargath provide any solid evidence that evolution exists? The only place that there is anything close to solid evidence for evolution, is in the dreams of evolutionists.

Where did I say "... so it's false?" All I did was answer Astargath's question, even though I may have shown how unanswerable it is. Since you are trying to say that I said something that you know well that I didn't say, you are shown to have bad faith, and should be regarded with caution.

You seem to suggest that spontaneous generation of human life doesn't exist. But that is exactly what evolution is... spontaneous generation of life, be it human or otherwise. Make up your mind. What do you believe in?

Look at all the living things around. None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature, according to the complex laws of reproduction physics. That we know of, it has always been like this.

I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution, in other words. If there was any, it would have to be back in the beginning, when everything was being put into place, because everything else in nature operates by cause and effect, not spontaneous generation.

In other words, no evolution. Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

And I'm asking for evidence that it happened, I know no one can go back in time to see it happen, no one can go back in time to see evolution happening that's why we have evidence that points to evolution. If all the evidence that points to evolution is wrong it would be logical to at least have the same amount of evidence for the spontaneous generation of life which is what is claimed to be true, how is it possible to have 0 evidence for what is supposed to be true and a ton of evidence for what is supposed to be a hoax. Weird

As I said, the evidence for the existence of evolution, ALL fits evidence and proof for other things much better than it fits evolution. The greatest of the "other things" is cause and effect... which essentially equates with programming. Programming says that there is a programmer. And a programmer of the magnitude that it would take to program something as complex as the physics of the universe - so that the universe could actually come into being through the programming - fits the description of God.

If evolution scientists had simply missed cause and effect, evolution might not be a hoax. But all the scientists know about C&E, and that there really isn't any pure random (true spontaneity) anywhere. Because they all know this, and yet proclaim that evolution is real, evolution has become a hoax... and a religion for the ignorant people.

[Astargath]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

Where does Astargath provide any solid evidence that evolution exists? The only place that there is anything close to solid evidence for evolution, is in the dreams of evolutionists.

Where did I say "... so it's false?" All I did was answer Astargath's question, even though I may have shown how unanswerable it is. Since you are trying to say that I said something that you know well that I didn't say, you are shown to have bad faith, and should be regarded with caution.

You seem to suggest that spontaneous generation of human life doesn't exist. But that is exactly what evolution is... spontaneous generation of life, be it human or otherwise. Make up your mind. What do you believe in?

Look at all the living things around. None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature, according to the complex laws of reproduction physics. That we know of, it has always been like this.

I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution, in other words. If there was any, it would have to be back in the beginning, when everything was being put into place, because everything else in nature operates by cause and effect, not spontaneous generation.

In other words, no evolution. Evolution is a hoax.

ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly.

''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day.

''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary.

[Vod]

Where does Astargath provide any solid evidence that evolution exists?
In other words, no evolution. Evolution is a hoax.

Where has Badecker ever provided any evidence at all that a god exists?

Never.  No evidence.

In other words, no god.  god is a hoax.

[BADecker]

ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly.

Quite the opposite. Everyone knows that life that reproduces, does so according to the laws of reproduction, complex as they are. The question is, are the mutations responsible for the so-called evolutionary changes spontaneous? or programmed in via cause and effect?

Why would anyone think that God created anything spontaneously? When people get together and make something as complex as a modern automobile, they don't do it spontaneously, even in their thinking. They do it through tremendous amounts of thoughtful design.

Why would anyone think that God just spontaneously "blooped" the universe together in all its great complexity? But He might have, because He is extremely different than we are in a multitude of ways. We just don't know how God what He did. But if you suggest that what He did is like what we do, then nothing that exists was spontaneously made. This means that there is no evolution.

''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day.

You seem to be limiting the abilities of God rather than showing spontaneity.

''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary.

I just showed you in my previous two posts here and above in this post, that we don't really know how God created the universe. But the result is cause and effect, no spontaneity. Evolution is spontaneity, regarding the mutations. There isn't any spontaneity, not even in the mutations.

It is like the random choices that people make. They aren't really random. It's just that people don't understand all the cause and effect that go into their thinking, so they suggest random thinking. Spontaneity doesn't really exist, either. There isn't any thing that happens spontaneously. It's all programmed by C&E. We think that some things happen spontaneously, because we  are too week to follow the programming.

C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.

[Vod]

C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.

So this whole "free will" your god gives us means nothing since we are slaves to the cause?

[Astargath]

ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly.

Quite the opposite. Everyone knows that life that reproduces, does so according to the laws of reproduction, complex as they are. The question is, are the mutations responsible for the so-called evolutionary changes spontaneous? or programmed in via cause and effect?

Why would anyone think that God created anything spontaneously? When people get together and make something as complex as a modern automobile, they don't do it spontaneously, even in their thinking. They do it through tremendous amounts of thoughtful design.

Why would anyone think that God just spontaneously "blooped" the universe together in all its great complexity? But He might have, because He is extremely different than we are in a multitude of ways. We just don't know how God what He did. But if you suggest that what He did is like what we do, then nothing that exists was spontaneously made. This means that there is no evolution.

''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day.

You seem to be limiting the abilities of God rather than showing spontaneity.

''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary.

I just showed you in my previous two posts here and above in this post, that we don't really know how God created the universe. But the result is cause and effect, no spontaneity. Evolution is spontaneity, regarding the mutations. There isn't any spontaneity, not even in the mutations.

It is like the random choices that people make. They aren't really random. It's just that people don't understand all the cause and effect that go into their thinking, so they suggest random thinking. Spontaneity doesn't really exist, either. There isn't any thing that happens spontaneously. It's all programmed by C&E. We think that some things happen spontaneously, because we  are too week to follow the programming.

C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.

So what's the point of hell and heaven or sin if every choice I make is already programmed it means it's not my fault, thanks for debunking your own religion. I rest my case your honor.

[Astargath]

C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.

So this whole "free will" your god gives us means nothing since we are slaves to the cause?

He will come with with some bullshit explanation of that, watch.

[BADecker]

C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.

So this whole "free will" your god gives us means nothing since we are slaves to the cause?

Quite the contrary.

in the same way that we don't understand the way that our free will is not free because of cause and effect, even so we do not understand how God can allow us free will when we understand how everything is programmed by C&E.

The point is, We DO have free will, but our free will exists in a completely different way than we understand it.

Your use of your free will to respond to my posts like you do, is "expressed" like it is, through God having programmed it into the universe through C&E, right from the beginning.

[Vod]

Your use of your free will to respond to my posts like you do, is "expressed" like it is, through God having programmed it into the universe through C&E, right from the beginning.

How can it be free will if your god dictated my post six thousand years ago?

(Talk about one anal control freak lol)