Evolution is a hoax

[Vod]

Dogs are proof of evolution and how quickly it can change things.   

Pull your head out of the sand and go to a dog park someday.  All these breeds were crafted by humans to enhance desired traits within our recorded history.

Dogs are proof of change, not evolution in the sense of evolution theory. Dive deeper into the sand.

No, you will not pull me down into the sand with you.

Dogs are proof of evolution.  Go to a dog park and take a look at the wonders! 

[1714837767]

1714837767

[1714837767]

1714837767

[1714837767]

1714837767

[Astargath]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

[BADecker]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

[BADecker]

Dogs are proof of evolution and how quickly it can change things.   

Pull your head out of the sand and go to a dog park someday.  All these breeds were crafted by humans to enhance desired traits within our recorded history.

Dogs are proof of change, not evolution in the sense of evolution theory. Dive deeper into the sand.

No, you will not pull me down into the sand with you.

Dogs are proof of evolution.  Go to a dog park and take a look at the wonders! 

LOL! Dogs are proof of cause and effect. Didn't you ever watch anybody train a dog? The genetic programming in a wild dog is the proof that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't apply to dogs... or anything else, for that matter.

[BADecker]

Let me give another insight on the cause and effect argument since that's his only argument, all the others have been dismissed already. ''everything has a cause'' is not a factual statement and it is not known to be factual. Badecker only likes things that are factual, right? He keeps saying evolution theory is a theory not a fact. ''Everything has a cause'' is not a fact either and you can't prove everything has a cause, in fact some physicists would argue that some things may not have a cause. There are also arguments that show something that has an infinite cause because the effect is the cause. Either way, we do not know whether everything has a cause or not so that's wrong.

Let me give a little insight on cause and effect vs. evolution.

C&E is found in millions or billions or trillions of operations that we know of. If there is an operation wherein we haven't found C&E, nothing else has been found in that operation, either. This means that it's C&E, or we don't know, but the gigantically overwhelming evidence is for C&E.

Evolution is exactly the opposite. Close to 100% of the operations attributed to evolution have never been factually/actually observed as part of the evolution process. There is all kinds of circumstantial evidence that is loudly proclaimed. But there is only a tiny amount of actually-been-seen evidence. This means that the few observed operations that have been attributed to evolution, are little islands of evolution, which makes them far more liable to be part of some operation other than evolution.

This all means that a little, teensy-eensy evolution idea, is bucking overwhelming humongous C&E that says that evolution is something entirely different than evolutionists suggest. To put this into perspective, the odds that evolution could exist would be like a goldfish swimming up Victoria Falls in Zambia. It would like having a standard lottery drawing of millions of entries, with all the participants full winners.

Close to 100% of evolution is simply a science fiction story. All of the 100% of C&E that has been observed is humongous. The little bit of evolution that seems to truly be evolution, still has C&E behind it, making it to be something entirely different than the evolution that evolutionists are proclaiming.

In addition, no other points against evolution have been dismissed. Volumes have been filled with real reasons why evolution is false. Let's get to the point, and dismiss evolution as the science fiction that it is. But since the science fiction known as evolution is being touted as fact by those who know otherwise, evolution is a big, fat hoax.

No nonooo. ''If there is an operation wherein we haven't found C&E, nothing else has been found in that operation, either. This means that it's C&E, or we don't know'' Fallacy. Again you cannot prove that everything falls down to C&E, specially in the past. Just like you don't to accept carbon dating or other dating methods because and I quote you here ''we can't be sure if they worked like that in the past'' just like we cannot be sure that C&E affects everything or if C&E existed in everything in the past. C&E is not known to be factual therefore you shouldn't use it.

Now I don't have to prove C&E to you. You said it right above, highlighted. We DO know. There isn't anything other than C&E.

When you research the idea of pure random, the researchers will tell you that it is something that would cause disruptions throughout the universe if it existed. Everything, even the wild bashing about of the particles and energies in a nuclear explosion, follow the laws of physics through C&E. In fact, we can barely conceive of pure random.

You are trying to promote an idea you don't really understand.

[Vod]

LOL! Dogs are proof of cause and effect. Didn't you ever watch anybody train a dog? The genetic programming in a wild dog is the proof that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't apply to dogs... or anything else, for that matter.

Dogs are also proof of evolution.  Within our recorded history, man has created hundreds of different kinds of animals from the one dog your god brought on the big boat.

You are trying to argue against a theroy you don't really understand.

[Astargath]

Let me give another insight on the cause and effect argument since that's his only argument, all the others have been dismissed already. ''everything has a cause'' is not a factual statement and it is not known to be factual. Badecker only likes things that are factual, right? He keeps saying evolution theory is a theory not a fact. ''Everything has a cause'' is not a fact either and you can't prove everything has a cause, in fact some physicists would argue that some things may not have a cause. There are also arguments that show something that has an infinite cause because the effect is the cause. Either way, we do not know whether everything has a cause or not so that's wrong.

Let me give a little insight on cause and effect vs. evolution.

C&E is found in millions or billions or trillions of operations that we know of. If there is an operation wherein we haven't found C&E, nothing else has been found in that operation, either. This means that it's C&E, or we don't know, but the gigantically overwhelming evidence is for C&E.

Evolution is exactly the opposite. Close to 100% of the operations attributed to evolution have never been factually/actually observed as part of the evolution process. There is all kinds of circumstantial evidence that is loudly proclaimed. But there is only a tiny amount of actually-been-seen evidence. This means that the few observed operations that have been attributed to evolution, are little islands of evolution, which makes them far more liable to be part of some operation other than evolution.

This all means that a little, teensy-eensy evolution idea, is bucking overwhelming humongous C&E that says that evolution is something entirely different than evolutionists suggest. To put this into perspective, the odds that evolution could exist would be like a goldfish swimming up Victoria Falls in Zambia. It would like having a standard lottery drawing of millions of entries, with all the participants full winners.

Close to 100% of evolution is simply a science fiction story. All of the 100% of C&E that has been observed is humongous. The little bit of evolution that seems to truly be evolution, still has C&E behind it, making it to be something entirely different than the evolution that evolutionists are proclaiming.

In addition, no other points against evolution have been dismissed. Volumes have been filled with real reasons why evolution is false. Let's get to the point, and dismiss evolution as the science fiction that it is. But since the science fiction known as evolution is being touted as fact by those who know otherwise, evolution is a big, fat hoax.

No nonooo. ''If there is an operation wherein we haven't found C&E, nothing else has been found in that operation, either. This means that it's C&E, or we don't know'' Fallacy. Again you cannot prove that everything falls down to C&E, specially in the past. Just like you don't to accept carbon dating or other dating methods because and I quote you here ''we can't be sure if they worked like that in the past'' just like we cannot be sure that C&E affects everything or if C&E existed in everything in the past. C&E is not known to be factual therefore you shouldn't use it.

Now I don't have to prove C&E to you. You said it right above, highlighted. We DO know. There isn't anything other than C&E.

When you research the idea of pure random, the researchers will tell you that it is something that would cause disruptions throughout the universe if it existed. Everything, even the wild bashing about of the particles and energies in a nuclear explosion, follow the laws of physics through C&E. In fact, we can barely conceive of pure random.

You are trying to promote an idea you don't really understand.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

[Astargath]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

[tempebacem]

I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution. While there may be creatures that are well adapted to their environment, I am not convinced that cellulite organisms can develop into something so complex.

[BADecker]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

[Astargath]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

[BADecker]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.

Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.

But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.

Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.

Evolution is barely possible, but C&E  - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.

Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.

There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.

No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.

[KingScorpio]

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

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

a possible evolution doesnt dissprove that the universe has not some kind of an intelligent AI like Sourcecode or Consoll Command option....

[Vod]

The guy keeps arguing over and over that the world is made of sand.  No matter what you say, he will insist he is right, for that is all he knows.   

[BADecker]

The fundamental material parts of everything that we know, are particles that are half energy - protons, nutrons, electrons:

Q:

If everything is made of atom, then atom has three parts proton,neutron and electron so therefore an atom is made of proton neutron and electron? what are the parts of proton,neutron and electron?
- dominique enriquez (age 15)
Iba,Zambales,Phillipines


A:

Hello Dominique,

According to the latest theories, protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons..  Quarks are spin 1/2 particles. Gluons are spin zero carriers of the so-called 'Strong Force', the force that binds neutrons and protons inside the nucleus.  See for more details.

The electron, on the other hand, is an entity itself.  It is a member of a family of fundamental particles called leptons.  The electron does have an electric charge and is attracted to positive objects such as a proton to form a hydrogen atom.  See for more details.

LeeH

[almightylarvas]

monkeys are completely adapted to survive, humans exposed themselves to bigger dangers and had to learn to overcome these, you can think on brain size as the result of a risk/reward scenario

[Astargath]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.

Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.

But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.

Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.

Evolution is barely possible, but C&E  - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.

Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.

There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.

No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.

Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''

It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?

“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.

No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.

[BADecker]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.

Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.

But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.

Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.

Evolution is barely possible, but C&E  - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.

Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.

There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.

No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.

Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''

I have read. And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect. This means that people will have to do the best they can until they can do more. The best they can do is recognize that there are countless billions of C&E examples that they know of, and nothing that they have found that comes about some other way.

It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?

You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.

“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

Since he can't predict quantum outcomes, how does he know that there isn't a way to do it? All he is saying is that he doesn't know of a way.

Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?

So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.

No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.

No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.

Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.

Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.

But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...

Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.

[Astargath]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.

Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.

But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.

Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.

Evolution is barely possible, but C&E  - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.

Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.

There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.

No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.

Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''

I have read. And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect. This means that people will have to do the best they can until they can do more. The best they can do is recognize that there are countless billions of C&E examples that they know of, and nothing that they have found that comes about some other way.

It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?

You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.

“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

Since he can't predict quantum outcomes, how does he know that there isn't a way to do it? All he is saying is that he doesn't know of a way.

Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?

So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.

No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.

No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.

Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.

Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.

But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...

Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.

''Since he can't predict quantum outcomes, how does he know that there isn't a way to do it?''
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.


It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.

Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.

Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.

[BADecker]

Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.

However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.

This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.

Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.

You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)

Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.

That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not

Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?

Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.

The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.

I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.

Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual.  We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.

You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.

Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.

But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.

Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.

Evolution is barely possible, but C&E  - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.

Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.

There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.

No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.

Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''

I have read. And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect. This means that people will have to do the best they can until they can do more. The best they can do is recognize that there are countless billions of C&E examples that they know of, and nothing that they have found that comes about some other way.

It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?

You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.

“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

Since he can't predict quantum outcomes, how does he know that there isn't a way to do it? All he is saying is that he doesn't know of a way.

Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?

So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.

No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.

No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.

Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.

Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.

But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...

Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.

''Since he can't predict quantum outcomes, how does he know that there isn't a way to do it?''
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.


It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.

Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.

Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you again for helping me.

Science has found that when the odds against something happening go to something like 10⁴⁰ to 1 against, that is something that is scientifically impossible. Now don't quote me on those odds. Go see what the odds really are.

The point is that even science knows that cause and effect is is throughout, because there is no other way that has been found. And if you study it, you will see that pure random doesn't even make sense.

The few things that have been literally observed that might fit evolution, fit things other than evolution, easier, like genetic programming as to how to deal with unexpected genetic errors caused by environment or some other factor. Mutations are programming, and as such don't fit evolution theory.