Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

[Przemax]

How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

The same way he "explains" everything else.  With his belief system - no facts.

It works well when he is talking to himself - it only breaks down when he tries to explain it to others.  :/

The history proves you and your meme is just wrong. Puritans like I. Newton (modern physics) and F. Bacon (modern scientific theory) were absolutely convinced that God had did it all and yet they still wanted to know how he made it.

So if you believe in God, it does not imply that you are not curious - how he made it all.

On the other hand, if you are not curious how evolution works (like most of the people), but you are convinced it is true becuase someone had said so - you are beyond help.

How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

It is easy. The date of fossils are dated based on the geological layer dating. It is one assumption based on another assumptions. Why noone would double check those assumptions? Because one is from the biology departament, and the other is geological. One and the other believes the other is right because they have to believe it because most biologist have no clue about geology and most geologist have no clue about biology. Those biologists who know geology will not get the review because there are not enough specialists to review them.

Even if some people have doubts, they are not the ones that teach the students on the universities, because most of the time it is the dumbest people. that can't find another job teaches on the universities, and dumb people are not thinking much. They believe they are very smart and privileged to teach.

You might say - it's impossible... Nah. Sadly it is possible. It is even more so. It is a reality.

[BADecker]

How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

The same way he "explains" everything else.  With his belief system - no facts.

It works well when he is talking to himself - it only breaks down when he tries to explain it to others.  :/

The history proves you and your meme is just wrong. Puritans like I. Newton (modern physics) and F. Bacon (modern scientific theory) were absolutely convinced that God had did it all and yet they still wanted to know how he made it.

So if you believe in God, it does not imply that you are not curious - how he made it all.

On the other hand, if you are not curious how evolution works (like most of the people), but you are convinced it is true becuase someone had said so - you are beyond help.

How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

It is easy. The date of fossils are dated based on the geological layer dating. It is one assumption based on another assumptions. Why noone would double check those assumptions? Because one is from the biology departament, and the other is geological. One and the other believes the other is right because they have to believe it because most biologist have no clue about geology and most geologist have no clue about biology. Those biologists who know geology will not get the review because there are not enough specialists to review them.

Even if some people have doubts, they are not the ones that teach the students on the universities, because most of the time it is the dumbest people that can't find another job teaches on the universities, and dumb people are not thinking much, they believe they are very smart and privilaged to teach.

You might say - it's impossible... Nah. Sadly it is possible. It is even more so. It is a reality.

bump

Great post.

[Astargath]

All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

Again with your crap? ''if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it.'' You claimed that C&E doesn't apply to god, I don't need to prove anything, you just keep contradicting yourself.

''Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.'' They really haven't, there is no research to find ''non C&E actions''

''Because C&E means that there is no pure random.'' Actually it only means that anything that has an effect also has a cause.

[BADecker]

All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

Again with your crap? ''if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it.'' You claimed that C&E doesn't apply to god, I don't need to prove anything, you just keep contradicting yourself.

''Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.'' They really haven't, there is no research to find ''non C&E actions''

''Because C&E means that there is no pure random.'' Actually it only means that anything that has an effect also has a cause.

You and your misquotes. C&E does not necessarily apply to God. We don't know for a fact. God is extremely beyond our thought processes; we can't understand anything about Him except that He tells us.

The whole basic format for all scientific research is about finding C&E. The individual scientist may not know it, but his supporting university or corporation is looking for C&E just so that they might finally have some possible way of proving evolution.

Anything that is an effect and has a cause IS programming. Programming means that pure random doesn't have anything to do with it.

Thanks for confirming the things that I have been saying, both about you and about evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[cristin]

Some people who had heard “theory evolution” or “Darwinisme”  that the concepts is only related to the study biology and don’t affect one bit against everyday life. The presumption is very wrong because of this theory was more than just the concept of biology. The theory evolution has become the foundations a philosophy fancies most of the human.

[Betszkie12]

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

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

Yes, how could monkeys be still present if they have evolved? There are really similarities but it does not mean that they are products of evolution. But I do believe that they live similarly made creations of a supreme being. Some are mistakes of nature, propably during the transfer of genes to another offspring where they appear erroneous and resulted in a different looking offspring like for example a lizard that is born looking like a snake.

[prasanna1992]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

[Przemax]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

Nope. Noone had ever seen even in the thousands of years the appearance of any new specie anywhere on earth. What we could see is the natural selection. Yes that exist. One specie can die, and the other can adapt but still is a specie of that kind - it can breed with the the same speciments. It all comes to a taxonomy. Nowadays "evolutionists" call subspecies a new specie. There is no reason to have a subspecie taxonomy if a two speciments of subspecie can interbreed - it is still a specie. Lion is still a cat, tiger is still a cat and cat is still a cat, they all can interbreed. There is an urban legend that those species are infertile, it was proven to be false.

There are some rare instances of partial infertility proven scientificly within the so called ring species. But it is nowhere near to prove that a cat is not cat anymore for example.

Noone has ever seen evolution in action, only so called adaption and natural selection. Noone. So logical conclusion must be that it must take more than thounsands of years - millions.

That is not science. Sorry. You just can not assume something has happened because it is possible. Someone will say - hey the God theory is not a science as well. I agree. Both are not science. Period. However one or another would try, it is imposible to say you have seen something when you have not. Period.

I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.

Where are those "ape-like" ancestors? None were found. Why do people say that they saw things that they did not? It is called a patological lies, and definatly not a science.

By the way. Evolutionists love the argument that if you do not believe in evolution you must think that God had made it. No way......... There are a lot of people that say the evolution is a lie, and they are 100% atheists. I was one of such a guy. It is just easier to believe in God if you do not believe your fellow human liars, thats all. They throw a stumbling block on you.

Those kind of proponents of evolution think that when they promote their point of view they are opposed by the God. NO! They are opposed by the truth. And it so happens to be that the God is on the truth side 100% times. Coincidence?

It just proves the words of the Jesus - Know the truth and truth will set you free. What truth? That we are an apes? To the contrary - that we are not. We are a children of God.

There are a lot of people that are just afraid of freedom. They like their little confinement. Ok. Let them be. I do not mind their choices. Just do not claim your lack of perspective is the whole picture.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

Nope. Noone had ever seen even in the thousands of years the appearance of any new specie anywhere on earth. What we could see is the natural selection. Yes that exist. One specie can die, and the other can adapt but still is a specie of that kind - it can breed with the the same speciments. It all comes to a taxonomy. Nowadays "evolutionists" call subspecies a new specie. There is no reason to have a subspecie taxonomy if a two speciments of subspecie can interbreed - it is still a specie. Lion is still a cat, tiger is still a cat and cat is still a cat, they all can interbreed. There is an urban legend that those species are infertile, it was proven to be false.

There are some rare instances of partial infertility proven scientificly within the so called ring species. But it is nowhere near to prove that a cat is not cat anymore for example.

Noone has ever seen evolution in action, only so called adaption and natural selection. Noone. So logical conclusion must be that it must take more than thounsands of years - millions.

That is not science. Sorry. You just can not assume something has happened because it is possible. Someone will say - hey the God theory is not a science as well. I agree. Both are not science. Period. However one or another would try, it is imposible to say you have seen something when you have not. Period.

I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.

Where are those "ape-like" ancestors? None were found. Why do people say that they saw things that they did not? It is called a patological lies, and definatly not a science.

By the way. Evolutionists love the argument that if you do not believe in evolution you must think that God had made it. No way......... There are a lot of people that say the evolution is a lie, and they are 100% atheists. I was one of such a guy. It is just easier to believe in God if you do not believe your fellow human liars, thats all. They throw a stumbling block on you.

Those kind of proponents of evolution think that when they promote their point of view they are opposed by the God. NO! They are opposed by the truth. And it so happens to be that the God is on the truth side 100% times. Coincidence?

It just proves the words of the Jesus - Know the truth and truth will set you free. What truth? That we are an apes? To the contrary - that we are not. We are a children of God.

There are a lot of people that are just afraid of freedom. They like their little confinement. Ok. Let them be. I do not mind their choices. Just do not claim your lack of perspective is the whole picture.

''I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.''

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

''Noone has ever seen evolution in action'' No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person, yet they are still able to identify the killer based on evidence just like scientists are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there. Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real, only a few radicals like you or badecker are against it in 2018. Good luck in real life dude.

[Przemax]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

[Astargath]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

[BADecker]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do people who can't find any proof for evolution, continually talk like it is real, when all it is, is a religion? It's amazing that people talk themselves into believing something as silly as evolution, based on a lot of talk, and on a handful of things that can easily be judged to be something other than evolution.

Evolution at best is a religion, but because it is a false religion...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Przemax]

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do you think I know nothing of evolution? I know more than you. I know there is no empirical evidence for it. Just a possibilities and assumptions. Those in my humble opinion should not be the basis to create your life ideology around. Just that.

I am not smarter than anyone. I admire someone spending so much energy and devotion to defend such a ridiculous idea to make it more believable. So I not only think Im not smarter than those people I am a lot less devoted than them.

Oh I do not even need to write anything on the subject of evolution. There are a lot of materials on the internet that absolutely demolish evolution. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38VngsfvMOs&index=6&list=PLvi3DA39DmAFRwMmadh6Nrkf8ognXmgnB

I would add that the unused organs dissapear - called Atrophy, that would prove evolution wrong as well, as the evolution claims that proves are within the remains of now unused organs. That is simply impossible because it violates the law of Atrophy of unused organs.

So the only one claim that is shouted everywhere, about supposedly unusuful part of the body, that was used by the specie that was evolved from is just impossible to happen as it violates scientific law.

That one is enough to prove that "evolutionists" are not credible, to say the least to be called a knowledgable and critically thinking people.

[wpalczynski]

This is so ridiculous, we didn't evolve from monkey... Nowaday monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor which disappeared since then. Evolution is the only theory that actually makes some sense. It might be proven wrong one day and I am sure that scientists will recongnize another truth if evolution gets overruled by evidence.

[Astargath]

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do you think I know nothing of evolution? I know more than you. I know there is no empirical evidence for it. Just a possibilities and assumptions. Those in my humble opinion should not be the basis to create your life ideology around. Just that.

I am not smarter than anyone. I admire someone spending so much energy and devotion to defend such a ridiculous idea to make it more believable. So I not only think Im not smarter than those people I am a lot less devoted than them.

Oh I do not even need to write anything on the subject of evolution. There are a lot of materials on the internet that absolutely demolish evolution. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38VngsfvMOs&index=6&list=PLvi3DA39DmAFRwMmadh6Nrkf8ognXmgnB

I would add that the unused organs dissapear - called Atrophy, that would prove evolution wrong as well, as the evolution claims that proves are within the remains of now unused organs. That is simply impossible because it violates the law of Atrophy of unused organs.

So the only one claim that is shouted everywhere, about supposedly unusuful part of the body, that was used by the specie that was evolved from is just impossible to happen as it violates scientific law.

That one is enough to prove that "evolutionists" are not credible, to say the least to be called a knowledgable and critically thinking people.

Thanks for the video, It's a great example of how I know you don't know shit about evolution. It's also in the comments.

''This video begins with a straight-out lie, and gets worse throughout. In science, a theory is not a law, and never will be one. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is consistent with many observations of the phenomenon. A law is a simple statement of the relation between two or more quantities.''

''First of all, Law =/= theory. This is the first two fucking sentences in your video. A theory is an explanation based on evidence that has not been proven beyond a doubt but is most likely true. A law has been proven. If evolution had been disproven, it would be considered a debunked theory, and it wouldn't be a law even if it was proven, it would just be a phenomenon.''

See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?

[angelinakorenovskaya]

There is no axioms for the evolution, no metrics, no algebra, it's barely a science at all.

[Przemax]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

[Astargath]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

''Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

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

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-new-species-of-darwins-finch-evolved-in-just-two-generations/

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

[Przemax]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

''Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

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

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-new-species-of-darwins-finch-evolved-in-just-two-generations/

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

"From the description, one would think that this was a very convincing example of macroevolution in action. Obviously, there must have been quite a number of massive mutations to produce an entirely new species that could not interbreed with the original. Right? Actually, every statement above is absolutely true. However, some of the important details have been intentionally left out, in order to make this example sound much better than it really is. Here is what actually happened.

The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard diploid (two copies of each chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of chromosomes.  With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species have the same number of chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.

If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation.""

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

You conveniently leave out the parts of the movie I had gave you. And now you play ignorant that you do not know what I am talking about. How convenient. Just like your "evolutionists" masters of omision.

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

Nervous?

Now I know why it is called a theory - by ommision the unconvenient truth by a half truths. That is trully wicked way of tricking the science community. And to think all of that effort just to discredit the Holy Word.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

That does not meet the criterium of a definition of a new specie. Sorry to say that. It is just "so called" hybrydisation which means a breeding within the same specie, but for a convenience sake, and sake of their taxonomy called a different specie.

How come - when it came to the polyploid plants so called "evilutionists" knows exactly what is the definition of the specie, and when it come to the other species - they forget that? Im talking about this part:

They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''

Classic definition.............. There is no other. At least there shouldn't be a switchy switchy with the definitions for convenience sake. That just proves we live in a totally wicked world if something like that happens.

Stop and think for a second. Doesn't that bother you? Are you so hopelessly tuned on to evolution that you are not even slightly critical, that something fishy is going on?

In one article they say that it is normal for hybridisation to have fertile offspring, on the other they say that hybrids are infertile. That should make your red light off - they are messing with your head by contradictory informations ok? They are preying on your ignorance.

If I will call myself a Cyborg and everybody would agree would that make me one? According to some self proclaimed scientist yeah.

Yeah I know you will say that my sources are not credible because they have God in the name of the page. You guys are predictible. You do not want to double check if that is true, you will just assume they are wrong because you are so SCIENCE POWER RANGERS... Sigh..... ehhhhh