Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

Evolution is made to discredit the majestic work of God the creator. 

Yes, the entire argument comes down to science vs magic.

Hypocrites denounce science while they use it every minute.  :/

God made science. If you renounce God, you are renouncing science.

[1713988288]

1713988288

[1713988288]

1713988288

[1713988288]

1713988288

[BADecker]

At the end of the day, we only know how we got here after we die.

After we die?  We don't know anything - we don't exist any longer.

The proof of god being a hoax is confirmed at every death.  Nothing happens to you after death.  That is hard to understand for people who believe they are "special". 

That's why God will raise us all in the Resurrection at the last day.

[BADecker]

If Evolution is a hoax, then how can carbon-14 say things like 80.000 old artifacts being found all over the world?
And it was proven that carbon-14 works.
Because otherwise, as some say, Earth is only 6000 years old.
Which also means that someone is wrong.

Especially when they find some objects that they carbon dating dates 10,000 years into the future

[BADecker]

The Bible simply says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Well, actually, the Bible says a little more than that. Go here http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm to see how the Bible shows us that the earth is a little more than 6,000 years old.

[tuikindu]

Humanity from hairy apes evolved into smooth skin according to the theory of evolution to explain the process of human is the original humans really evolve from land to sea, and later evolved to land from the sea, and then evolved into the ocean, with the three or four times and evolved as expected from the lungs and evolution in the gills breathe and evolution in the lungs, ancient people is too great, is too strong, too I drop a god, too want to evolve to evolve into what you, really I drop a god!

[Falmera]

The theory of evolution might be true. Not only for human but for any species. In the theory, it states that individuals cannot evolve, they can only adapt to their environments. Those adaptations add up over time and, eventually, the entire species has evolved from what it was like earlier.
This can lead to new species forming and sometimes extinction of older species. When it comes to human, there might be evolution happened but I don't think we are really from monkey .

[yurenchuang7125]

Humans evolved a trick.

America's most famous ecologist Dr Is also a level of professional scientists have recently made a very shocked: after and a number of scientists' research, find the origin of human beings is not in the earth, but in 200000-60000 years ago was alien to the earth!

[AdarWeinreb]

That is not how evolution works my friend. Evolution is more than just a theory, it is fact. One that is not only backed by science but also by logic. If you don't believe in evolution it simply means you haven't learned about it. Once you learn about it, denying seem absolutely ridiculous.

[4Rena]

Evolution is fictitious. God created humans . same way humans made cups,cars,aeroplane, etc

[gsarano]

I do not believe this theory either. But people in ancient times look like monkeys. Maybe that's why it's called theory.

[Abil_Salman]

The theory of evolution States that all living beings are multiform derived from one common ancestor. According to this theory, the appearance of living beings that are so diverse occurs through small variations and gradual in the span of a very long time. This theory States that the one-celled living things originally formed. For hundreds of million years later, this single-celled creatures turned into fish and animal invertebrates (spineless rear) that live in the sea. These fish then allegedly appeared to land and turned into reptiles. This fairy tale continues, and so on until the statement that birds and mammals evolved from reptiles.

[Astargath]

You said:

''Yet, somehow, lots of non-scientists suddenly think that the scientists say that evolution is true''

I responded to that showing you statistics that we don't just think scientists say evolution is true, they actually do say evolution is true.

So, keep on talking religion. None of the speaking or writing scientists have any proof. The evidence fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

If that was true we wouldn't have less than 5% of scientists that believe in creation.

But creation and religion aren't the point of this topic. Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it. They just don't know. But many of them are realizing that there is, scientifically understood, intelligent design shown in the universe. And they are beginning to realize that...

Evolution is a hoax.

Oh, they just don't know. You know better than them badecker, go tell them!!

Thank you for the compliment. But you are mistaken. They, themselves, say that they don't know.

Evolution is a hoax.

I mean I can link more data showing virtually every scientist and all science agrees that evolution is true but you are going to say something stupid so it's pointless.

You are going to link their signed affidavits, with locations to where these are recorded in government recording offices, as well?

Polls can be twisted to show anything. Websites can proclaim anything. We are looking for proof. Let's see their signed affidavits, for starters.

Evolution is a hoax.

Badecker is the type of guy that will say ''scientists do not believe in evolution'' without giving any type of evidence. I can link here 20 different polls and websites saying they do, can you link at least 1 that says most scientists think evolution is not true?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/13/creationism-evolution-template-for-easing-divisions-tom-krattenmaker-column/467800001/

Even religious people like you have to accept evolution now, most religions do already. They are forced to because the science supporting it is too strong, otherwise why do you think all these religious groups are accepting evolution more and more if they truly believe in god?

Let's see BADecker's signed affidavit with the location where it is recorded in government recording offices, as well. Other than that, how would you know that BADecker says something like that? You might claim it, but if you do without in-context evidence, you are proving to be one of those jokers that twists things to suggest something different than what the speaker said.

Since this is what you so often do, you are showing us all that you can't find any practical thing that proves that evolution exists. When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about enough to speak about it clearly, you have a religion going for yourself. And that is what evolution is... a religion, at best. But really...

Evolution is a hoax.

''They, themselves, say that they don't know.''

''Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it.''

Yet you never provided anything close to evidence for these claims. You won't find any evidence because they are false.

''When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about '' I don't understand how computers work yet I don't deny their existence. I might not understand evolution with all the technical details but the concept is extremely easy to understand, you are the only one who denies it, the problem is that you deny it to be able to believe in your fictional god not because you actually thought it was wrong. You already had the idea that it has to be wrong because your god wouldn't exist if it wasnt.

[BADecker]

''They, themselves, say that they don't know.''

''Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it.''

Yet you never provided anything close to evidence for these claims. You won't find any evidence because they are false.

''When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about '' I don't understand how computers work yet I don't deny their existence. I might not understand evolution with all the technical details but the concept is extremely easy to understand, you are the only one who denies it, the problem is that you deny it to be able to believe in your fictional god not because you actually thought it was wrong. You already had the idea that it has to be wrong because your god wouldn't exist if it wasnt.

Evolution works. How? Understanding of evolution is evolving.

Scientists not involved in evolution studies simply accept the word of scientists that are. But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work. Their evolution of old evolution talk into new evolution talk simply hasn't come about in great detail yet. So, other scientists who are not evolution scientists continue to believe the unevolved word of the evolution scientists.

Evolution is evolving into something that is impossible in the minds of evolution scientists. These scientists are starting to accept evolution on faith that it MUST be real... rather than on knowledge. One of the rather out-in-the-open ways that I have shown in different posts in this thread is, dating of fossils is so mixed up that there is no clear pattern for how evolution might work by the physical evidence.

How do WE, the more-or-less laymen of science, know this is true? We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution. Once we look at the fallacies, even if we are layman, we in the same way as the scientists that are NOT evolution scientists, see that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that evolution is a hoax.

Supposed evidence for evolution is evidence for ways other than evolution, way more than it is evidence for evolution. Evolution people are simply waking up to this fact that has been there all along.

Isn't it about time that you come out of evolution silliness? Join the many people - many of them evolution scientists - who are realizing that evolution has been a big mistake all along.

Evolution is a hoax.

[galactic123]

Evolution is a hoax

Heh. In reality we are characters inside some sort of simulation or videogame. Maybe some sort of jazzed up pixels, created to entertain our creators.  Or maybe I have been seeing too much Matrix and playing too much No Man's Sky...  

[andrino]

Monkeys were created with body, head, eyes, ears, hairs, tongue, feet, heart and mind or simply like a human in physical matter. Animals were created first before human being in this planet. If man was from ape what ugly man kind is. Human is human after 10 years, 20 yrs, 50 yrs, 100yrs, 500yrs and 1000yrs. I didn't see anything man turn to ape, or ape turn to man. The beliefs of evolution can make the students to amiss miserable lie thruth forever. Evolution seems good when the student doesn't have any idea regarding of creation. Most acceptable to believe man is man forever and ape is ape forever. Unless science make involve with this, there will be a big change of discovery.

[Crazygreek]

Sometimes others evolve slowly than our race man The problem is that we can't evolve and apopt but you can't even see this because you are stupid haha.

[BADecker]

The Religion of Evolution:

The Religion of Evolution

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”



Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”



Robert Jastrow, an internationally known astronomer, founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University, and Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College, describes science as “religion” in the chapter where the following quotation is taken:

    “Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? Was the Universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre-existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. An entire world, rich in structure and history, may have existed before our Universe appeared; but if it did, science cannot tell what kind of world it was. A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is.”



Another proposed mechanism of evolution is that of “punctuated equilibrium” by Niles Eldredge and the late Stephen Jay Gould. “Punk Eek,” as it is affectionately called by some and derisively labeled by others, is a radical departure from the confessional statement of beliefs of the First Church of Charles Darwin. Where the Church of Darwin first suggested that changes occur gradually over long periods of time (equilibrium or stasis), Punk Eek adherents conjecture that the “abrupt appearance of species (in the fossil record) could be explained by the transition occurring quickly, geologically speaking, in small, isolated populations such that transitional forms would be highly unlikely to be preserved”. The change in doctrine came when transitional fossils could not be found to support the orthodox Darwinian dogma. Gould, a high priest of the movement before his death this year, had to confess:

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology… . [T]o preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”



Sometimes the priesthood objects to one of its own members when he strays too far from the accepted dogma. Crick is one of them. When this happens, a very rare occurrence to be sure, the full force of inquisitional opposition from the scientific priesthood is brought to bear on the heretic. Consider Danish environmental scientist Bjorn Lomborg, a left-wing evolutionary scientist whose specialty is statistics, who dared to stray and state that “We are not running out of energy or natural resources.” A former member of Greenpeace and the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (1998), Lomborg has been giving the leftist environmental lobby fits. Since his scientific paradigm does not correspond to the prevailing environmental religion, drastic measures had to be taken in an attempt to silence him:

    “Some scientists say they initially hoped to ignore Lomborg but in the wake of the book’s popularity have reacted with a fury rarely seen in academia… . A dozen esteemed environmental scientists, including [Peter] Raven and Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson, are demanding that Lomborg’s publisher cut him loose. - ‘We are deeply disturbed that Cambridge University Press would publish and promote an error-filled, poorly referenced and non-peer-reviewed work,’ they write in a letter calling on Cambridge to transfer publishing rights to a popular, nonscholarly press.”



C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson’s frank admission and responded: “Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.” Gould adds:

    “But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”

Read more at https://answersingenesis.org/public-school/religion-in-schools/the-religion-of-evolution/.

[Astargath]

''They, themselves, say that they don't know.''

''Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it.''

Yet you never provided anything close to evidence for these claims. You won't find any evidence because they are false.

''When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about '' I don't understand how computers work yet I don't deny their existence. I might not understand evolution with all the technical details but the concept is extremely easy to understand, you are the only one who denies it, the problem is that you deny it to be able to believe in your fictional god not because you actually thought it was wrong. You already had the idea that it has to be wrong because your god wouldn't exist if it wasnt.

Evolution works. How? Understanding of evolution is evolving.

Scientists not involved in evolution studies simply accept the word of scientists that are. But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work. Their evolution of old evolution talk into new evolution talk simply hasn't come about in great detail yet. So, other scientists who are not evolution scientists continue to believe the unevolved word of the evolution scientists.

Evolution is evolving into something that is impossible in the minds of evolution scientists. These scientists are starting to accept evolution on faith that it MUST be real... rather than on knowledge. One of the rather out-in-the-open ways that I have shown in different posts in this thread is, dating of fossils is so mixed up that there is no clear pattern for how evolution might work by the physical evidence.

How do WE, the more-or-less laymen of science, know this is true? We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution. Once we look at the fallacies, even if we are layman, we in the same way as the scientists that are NOT evolution scientists, see that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that evolution is a hoax.

Supposed evidence for evolution is evidence for ways other than evolution, way more than it is evidence for evolution. Evolution people are simply waking up to this fact that has been there all along.

Isn't it about time that you come out of evolution silliness? Join the many people - many of them evolution scientists - who are realizing that evolution has been a big mistake all along.

Evolution is a hoax.

''But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work.'' Where is the evidence for this, though?

''We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution.'' It's hard to find a website that is not religious talking about how evolution is impossible, I wonder why...

Evolution is a fact, explained by the evolution theory which is a scientific theory. A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made.

[BADecker]

''They, themselves, say that they don't know.''

''Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it.''

Yet you never provided anything close to evidence for these claims. You won't find any evidence because they are false.

''When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about '' I don't understand how computers work yet I don't deny their existence. I might not understand evolution with all the technical details but the concept is extremely easy to understand, you are the only one who denies it, the problem is that you deny it to be able to believe in your fictional god not because you actually thought it was wrong. You already had the idea that it has to be wrong because your god wouldn't exist if it wasnt.

Evolution works. How? Understanding of evolution is evolving.

Scientists not involved in evolution studies simply accept the word of scientists that are. But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work. Their evolution of old evolution talk into new evolution talk simply hasn't come about in great detail yet. So, other scientists who are not evolution scientists continue to believe the unevolved word of the evolution scientists.

Evolution is evolving into something that is impossible in the minds of evolution scientists. These scientists are starting to accept evolution on faith that it MUST be real... rather than on knowledge. One of the rather out-in-the-open ways that I have shown in different posts in this thread is, dating of fossils is so mixed up that there is no clear pattern for how evolution might work by the physical evidence.

How do WE, the more-or-less laymen of science, know this is true? We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution. Once we look at the fallacies, even if we are layman, we in the same way as the scientists that are NOT evolution scientists, see that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that evolution is a hoax.

Supposed evidence for evolution is evidence for ways other than evolution, way more than it is evidence for evolution. Evolution people are simply waking up to this fact that has been there all along.

Isn't it about time that you come out of evolution silliness? Join the many people - many of them evolution scientists - who are realizing that evolution has been a big mistake all along.

Evolution is a hoax.

''But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work.'' Where is the evidence for this, though?

''We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution.'' It's hard to find a website that is not religious talking about how evolution is impossible, I wonder why...

Evolution is a fact, explained by the evolution theory which is a scientific theory. A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made.

You ask "Where is the evidence for this, though?" But your eyes forget to look at the post directly above the one wherein you ask this question, to find the answer.

That same post presents a smattering of evolutionists talking about how evolution is little more than faith in its theory. Evolution theory exists; that is fact. The other fact is that it is kept alive as a theory by people who want it to be true... not by any fact of the existence of evolution.

Tanner talks about evolution. He bases his points on the idea of evolution that has been shown to be a metaphysical thing rather than a factual thing. There are reasons other than evolution for Tanner's "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact..." The "overarching theories about evolution" are simply that so little evolution fact exists that evolution is a religion for lack of these fact. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg29686165#msg29686165, which is only a smattering of logic expressed by the great thinkers of evolution and science.

[Astargath]

''They, themselves, say that they don't know.''

''Probably close to less than 5% of the scientists accept evolution theory as accurate. They have scientifically seen the flaws in it.''

Yet you never provided anything close to evidence for these claims. You won't find any evidence because they are false.

''When you rely on the sayings of others without understanding what you are talking about '' I don't understand how computers work yet I don't deny their existence. I might not understand evolution with all the technical details but the concept is extremely easy to understand, you are the only one who denies it, the problem is that you deny it to be able to believe in your fictional god not because you actually thought it was wrong. You already had the idea that it has to be wrong because your god wouldn't exist if it wasnt.

Evolution works. How? Understanding of evolution is evolving.

Scientists not involved in evolution studies simply accept the word of scientists that are. But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work. Their evolution of old evolution talk into new evolution talk simply hasn't come about in great detail yet. So, other scientists who are not evolution scientists continue to believe the unevolved word of the evolution scientists.

Evolution is evolving into something that is impossible in the minds of evolution scientists. These scientists are starting to accept evolution on faith that it MUST be real... rather than on knowledge. One of the rather out-in-the-open ways that I have shown in different posts in this thread is, dating of fossils is so mixed up that there is no clear pattern for how evolution might work by the physical evidence.

How do WE, the more-or-less laymen of science, know this is true? We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution. Once we look at the fallacies, even if we are layman, we in the same way as the scientists that are NOT evolution scientists, see that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that evolution is a hoax.

Supposed evidence for evolution is evidence for ways other than evolution, way more than it is evidence for evolution. Evolution people are simply waking up to this fact that has been there all along.

Isn't it about time that you come out of evolution silliness? Join the many people - many of them evolution scientists - who are realizing that evolution has been a big mistake all along.

Evolution is a hoax.

''But the scientists that are involved in evolution studies are finding that evolution doesn't work.'' Where is the evidence for this, though?

''We can see it in many of the books, and in websites that talk about the fallacies of evolution.'' It's hard to find a website that is not religious talking about how evolution is impossible, I wonder why...

Evolution is a fact, explained by the evolution theory which is a scientific theory. A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made.

You ask "Where is the evidence for this, though?" But your eyes forget to look at the post directly above the one wherein you ask this question, to find the answer.

That same post presents a smattering of evolutionists talking about how evolution is little more than faith in its theory. Evolution theory exists; that is fact. The other fact is that it is kept alive as a theory by people who want it to be true... not by any fact of the existence of evolution.

Tanner talks about evolution. He bases his points on the idea of evolution that has been shown to be a metaphysical thing rather than a factual thing. There are reasons other than evolution for Tanner's "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact..." The "overarching theories about evolution" are simply that so little evolution fact exists that evolution is a religion for lack of these fact. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg29686165#msg29686165, which is only a smattering of logic expressed by the great thinkers of evolution and science.

''It's hard to find a website that is not religious talking about how evolution is impossible, I wonder why...'' And what does badecker do, post a link of a creationist website, what a surprise eh?