Evolution is a hoax

[Przemax]

''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.

>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible

There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible

How do you know the world is real? You experience it that way right? The same with me and God. I have weird experiences, other people as well... and we all agree its God, as we have no other explanation for our sensations. If you would explain it to me how can I explain my feeling of being loved when there is absolutely no rational explanation for it I am all ears.

I might be making that up. But what is the difference if I feel it realisticly? Rational people should try everything, and if there would be a rational reason to believe evolution I would be first to study it. Convince me, or convince yourself to God.

Every single religious person would claim the same but with different gods and religions so clearly what you are experiencing can't be real, at all the others must be false but if you acknowledge that possibility then you understand that what you feel might be false as well. Having weird experiences can have a ton of different causes, the brain is capable of producing illusions so real that you could think they are real, that's why there are diseases like schizophrenia and others similar.

If you are convinced you know everything and that you would rather believe a doctor rather than yourself - it is your choice.

It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons.

Everyone have such a feelings it is just that the world now nurture people to be extravertic not intravertic to be able to reason their way up to God.

Every people regardless of religion have the experiences because everyone is the child of God. Religion using the words of Christ to the scribe said that religion can only block you in your way to the Kingdom of God. He said to him - What is the greatest commandment? The God is one. They both agreed, and Jesus said - you are not far from the Kingdom of God by saying that. So it is not what one do - but all depends on not doing things that separate us from God. It is a love of God regardless of religion and boundaries. Not to mention the dark forces that are in action as well.

You think that religious people are having a contact with the spiritual world because of religion. That makes no sense. They are in the religion because of the contact with the spiritual world.

''It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons.''

Not knowing the cause of something = god? See, this is the problem with you guys. You are extremely skeptical about evolution, for example, but have no problem believing in a supernatural god that performs miracles that no one has ever seen these days. That's your problem. If you are going to be skeptical, be skeptical about everything, specially of a supernatural god that leaves no evidence behind it.

He knows I am a bad bad boy. He knows I am a very sceptical about him .

I am the worst believer ever.... I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.... So maybe I am a little bit less sceptical about Jesus... but hey.... He sounds legit - right? And very smart.

I do question the dogmas. Actually I have none or maybe two Dogmas - God is One and love your neighbour as yourself. LOL... Religion is of the Satan. Jesus does not require any religious organisation, he requires the things that makes sense and are not a burden to our intelect or moral judgement.

What can I say? I need to thank to evolutionists for making fool of themselves. They make it easier for me to not believe in a folly.

Thank you very much. If not your mistakes I might be an evolutionist myself.

What can I do when I have doubts in my believes I found there is no other sensible explanation, because other explanations are lies?

Thanks for confirming my point. ''I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.'' You don't even know if the guy existed in the first place.

You believe in a supernatural god invented by ancient people because they didn't know better. You also think that the whole scientific community has been fabricating this complex hoax for 100 years. You think somehow they invented evolution and lied about it for 100 years, what the fuck would be the point of that, are you this dumb? You are no different than flat earthers who believe the whole world is a conspiracy and space is fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGC2JPPZf5w&list=PL34B22E9C0526344F&index=39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vDDI7IgPA

Ofcourse I do not think ALL SCIENCE are corrupt, but saying that all science are not corrupt is as foolish as saying that all are corrupt. Is it not? Some are and some are not.

If you believe evolution is a hoax you are virtually saying that most science is wrong since evolution is based on a lot of other sciences. You are basically saying that 99% of the scientific community is lying about evolution and all the other sciences that support it, in order to what? What would be the point of this hoax.

Firstly I do not agree with a premise that if one denies evolution - he denies most of sciences. There are some structures. Almost none of the sciences is based on evolution - only slightly some minor ones with minor to non-existant results and achievements. So it is irrelevant if one cut down the top sick and dry branches - in that case evolution, for a health of a tree. It is nothing else but some irrelevant offspring of some other misunderstandings based on a proper science.

Every lie breeds more lies. Every evil breeds more evil. For most part evil is not needed to have any purpose.

If one agrees with evil - it is as good as he had made evil himself. So if you soak a bunch of people in an enviroment when they have to comform to things they have to agree else something bad will happen to them - you create a people soaked with evil.

And do you think anyone that had spend their lives learning about evolution - and that is generally all they know - Will they admitt to themselves that it is a crap? No ofcourse not.

It is called a selfaffirmation - a very strong tendency within a carnal human mind. It is very strong tendency within a scientific community. Once I was in university I was told it was a very common in reaserchers to have a bias towards the desired hyphotesis. This urge is so strong that it is obvious many frauds will be committed.

The scientific community is just swarmed with confirmation biases. The whole system need to be deeply reformed as it is deeply ineffective.

P.S BTW. Your constant use of 99% of scientists is funny to me as I am a sociologist in degree.

Firstly. There must be some honesty in picking up the population we describe. There is no such a population as "the scientists" it is not a homogenious organisation. How could one construct such a population? Take a one guy from each field and ask him about the evolution? Most of the guys does not give a fuck about evolution.

If you construct a population based on evolutionists ,obviously without answering them, they will say they believe in evolution. When you would call them the population of "scientists" that would be insincere and unscientific describtion of a sample of the population that is related to reality.

Another funny thing about your 99% of scientists is that no honest sociologist would say 99% of some population do something, or believe in something because 5% is a degree of error. You must assume you are wrong to a degree of 5% else there is something wrong with your research.

There is one funny thing as well. You probably assume 99% agree because they do not react. You cannot do that. Honest sociologist would just assume that if a person does not do something - like acting on behalf of protest against the work of another scientist, there could be various of other factors than his believes. Like fear, comformity, lack of confidence, confirmation bias, friendship, group of interest, black mail etc etc.

His believes could only be as close to honesty as possible if it is done annonymously and based on his own words.

And the answers about the evolution cannot be honest in nature because most of the answers from the community of scientist would be - I don't know. Probably.

There are various of other problems in picking up the population we research if we are talking about scientists. You just cannot say that one scientist is the same level of importance as the other, so making assumptions based on the number of people and not their validity of arguments would not do you any good. Scientific community is not democratic.

Other issues with the population is that - you can't assume every scientist is in his lab or university, and outside of the lab or university there are no scientists. Those at the university are the most mainstream ones. So if you only take notice with the university type of people you do dishonesty to your research.

[1714057438]

1714057438

[1714057438]

1714057438

[1714057438]

1714057438

[Akupuniard]

Many times said this phrase about evolution from my friends and still don't know the answer. But at my opinion we just wasn't apes  evolution just changed amount of hair on our bodies.

[Astargath]

Hey you might be right, maybe instead of 99% I should say 95% or ''The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[17][18][19][20][21] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".''

''Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.''

''A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time''

[MNMLs]

no, it couldnt be. in our big world everything is so connected with each other. every little creature plays a big role in a strict structured lifesystem, we cant even imagine. evolution is a highly orginezed system, everything is on its places. mother nature woldnt destoy itself, so everything is racioanlistic and calculated.  

[Vod]

evolution just changed amount of hair on our bodies.

And the absolute proof of that is what we call "goosebumps".  We still have the evolutionary drive to push out hair out when it gets cold - we just don't have the hair anymore. 

[BADecker]

''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.

>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible

There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible

How do you know the world is real? You experience it that way right? The same with me and God. I have weird experiences, other people as well... and we all agree its God, as we have no other explanation for our sensations. If you would explain it to me how can I explain my feeling of being loved when there is absolutely no rational explanation for it I am all ears.

I might be making that up. But what is the difference if I feel it realisticly? Rational people should try everything, and if there would be a rational reason to believe evolution I would be first to study it. Convince me, or convince yourself to God.

Every single religious person would claim the same but with different gods and religions so clearly what you are experiencing can't be real, at all the others must be false but if you acknowledge that possibility then you understand that what you feel might be false as well. Having weird experiences can have a ton of different causes, the brain is capable of producing illusions so real that you could think they are real, that's why there are diseases like schizophrenia and others similar.

However. Since the things you are expressing are simply your religion, which religion is more accurate? I have shown you the proof that God exists and that evolution is a hoax, but you keep on believing your religion of evolution without God.

Sometime you really need to get out of your religion enough so that you can look at reality.

I have debunked your ''proof'' of god like 100 times and all you could do is come up with the same recycled answer, your delusion will never convince you of the contrary, just like notbatman will not be convinced that the earth is not flat, you are no different than him.

You certainly have said that you have debunked... many times. But what you are doing is debunking yourself. Why? Because you can't explain the scientific principles behind your so-called debunking. In other words, you have a lot of talk, but you don't know the subject matter of the things you are saying.

Evolution is a hoax... but for Astargath it is a religion.

[BADecker]

Firstly I do not agree with a premise that if one denies evolution - he denies most of sciences. There are some structures. Almost none of the sciences is based on evolution - only slightly some minor ones with minor to non-existant results and achievements. So it is irrelevant if one cut down the top sick and dry branches - in that case evolution, for a health of a tree. It is nothing else but some irrelevant offspring of some other misunderstandings based on a proper science.

Every lie breeds more lies. Every evil breeds more evil. For most part evil is not needed to have any purpose.

If one agrees with evil - it is as good as he had made evil himself. So if you soak a bunch of people in an enviroment when they have to comform to things they have to agree else something bad will happen to them - you create a people soaked with evil.

And do you think anyone that had spend their lives learning about evolution - and that is generally all they know - Will they admitt to themselves that it is a crap? No ofcourse not.

It is called a selfaffirmation - a very strong tendency within a carnal human mind. It is very strong tendency within a scientific community. Once I was in university I was told it was a very common in reaserchers to have a bias towards the desired hyphotesis. This urge is so strong that it is obvious many frauds will be committed.

The scientific community is just swarmed with confirmation biases. The whole system need to be deeply reformed as it is deeply ineffective.

P.S BTW. Your constant use of 99% of scientists is funny to me as I am a sociologist in degree.

Firstly. There must be some honesty in picking up the population we describe. There is no such a population as "the scientists" it is not a homogenious organisation. How could one construct such a population? Take a one guy from each field and ask him about the evolution? Most of the guys does not give a fuck about evolution.

If you construct a population based on evolutionists ,obviously without answering them, they will say they believe in evolution. When you would call them the population of "scientists" that would be insincere and unscientific describtion of a sample of the population that is related to reality.

Another funny thing about your 99% of scientists is that no honest sociologist would say 99% of some population do something, or believe in something because 5% is a degree of error. You must assume you are wrong to a degree of 5% else there is something wrong with your research.

There is one funny thing as well. You probably assume 99% agree because they do not react. You cannot do that. Honest sociologist would just assume that if a person does not do something - like acting on behalf of protest against the work of another scientist, there could be various of other factors than his believes. Like fear, comformity, lack of confidence, confirmation bias, friendship, group of interest, black mail etc etc.

His believes could only be as close to honesty as possible if it is done annonymously and based on his own words.

And the answers about the evolution cannot be honest in nature because most of the answers from the community of scientist would be - I don't know. Probably.

There are various of other problems in picking up the population we research if we are talking about scientists. You just cannot say that one scientist is the same level of importance as the other, so making assumptions based on the number of people and not their validity of arguments would not do you any good. Scientific community is not democratic.

Other issues with the population is that - you can't assume every scientist is in his lab or university, and outside of the lab or university there are no scientists. Those at the university are the most mainstream ones. So if you only take notice with the university type of people you do dishonesty to your research.

This is exactly the reason why I am not certain of the true position that Astartgath is coming from.
Is Astargath simply a troll?
Is he simply deeply misinformed?
Does he truly think that the more you say it, the stronger the reality for it becomes?

A person who has a knack for recognizing organization and statistics, but doesn't understand much of the subject matter that he is talking about, might act just like Astargath. But a paid troll would act the same way, as well.

Should I be giving him this much of the benefit of the doubt? Is he innocently misinformed? Or is he a paid troll?

[Przemax]

Hey you might be right, maybe instead of 99% I should say 95% or ''The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[17][18][19][20][21] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".''

''Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.''

''A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time''

Well... one can use science to know the reality and others can use pseudoscience to create reality of scientism. You choose the latter. Im sorry... that is just too dumb for me.

If you think you learn something about the reality, when you ask people that are required to agree with something - what they think of what they required to do, and you expect them to be negative on it when they had not quit, and invest a whole lot of time and effort, you have to be out of your mind.

It's like asking a Foreign Legion Legionaire what they think about the Legion. Would you think they would say meh.... it sux I just wasted my whole life for that I passed this hellish test of prowress for nothing? Ofcourse all of them... almost would say that the Legion is awesome.

It is a kind of question like - do you like your job? And you know your job depends on it. Would you say you do not like your job? I would say noone would be crazy enough to do so. Or a question - what you think about your boss - and you would know your boss would read that answer?

It is just silly that anyone thinks that kind od surveys are telling anything about the reality. It is just dishonesty to the highest degree. It is sad that people think thats how science looks like.

Those kind of pseudo science is only creating a reality not explore it. I can't believe I have to explain that to anyone....

It is so funny that anyone take it seriously that I will give a joke about the lousy reality makers:

In the soviet union there was a poll with that question:

Who is your favourite leader? And why is it Stalin?

Thats what those polls are like. It is a grand scale farce.

[Przemax]

This is exactly the reason why I am not certain of the true position that Astartgath is coming from.
Is Astargath simply a troll?
Is he simply deeply misinformed?
Does he truly think that the more you say it, the stronger the reality for it becomes?

A person who has a knack for recognizing organization and statistics, but doesn't understand much of the subject matter that he is talking about, might act just like Astargath. But a paid troll would act the same way, as well.

Should I be giving him this much of the benefit of the doubt? Is he innocently misinformed? Or is he a paid troll?

Cool

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

[Vod]

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

Which is worse?   Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion).

[Przemax]

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

Which is worse?   Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion).

The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to.

You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air.

It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word.

If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently.

[Chepy8855]

as a human being who will usually run every way to achieve his wishes, usually all sense will be used. then the deception effect will occur

[Astargath]

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

Which is worse?   Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion).

The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to.

You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air.

It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word.

If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently.

I will say it again, evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the best scientific theory that explains that fact. There were and are actually different alternatives proposed to explain signs of evolution. The fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained.

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

[BADecker]

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

Which is worse?   Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion).

The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to.

You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air.

It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word.

If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently.

I will say it again, evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the best scientific theory that explains that fact. There were and are actually different alternatives proposed to explain signs of evolution. The fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained.

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

Say it again. We like it

Since there is no proven fact for evolution...
and since all the evidence for evolution can fit creation easier...
and since evolution talk is mostly contradictory...
and since even the knowledgeable evolutionists admit this...

Say it again. We like it


You and evolution are a couple of hoaxes.

[GabeLogan420]

I believe in evolution. This version of the development of events I like most. Perhaps people will still find how life began. But this is definitely not God

[Przemax]

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :







That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

[Astargath]

You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...

Which is worse?   Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion).

The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to.

You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air.

It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word.

If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently.

I will say it again, evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the best scientific theory that explains that fact. There were and are actually different alternatives proposed to explain signs of evolution. The fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained.

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

Say it again. We like it

Since there is no proven fact for evolution...
and since all the evidence for evolution can fit creation easier...
and since evolution talk is mostly contradictory...
and since even the knowledgeable evolutionists admit this...

Say it again. We like it


You and evolution are a couple of hoaxes.

Since there is no proven fact for evolution... I don't know what you mean, evolution is a proven fact
and since all the evidence for evolution can fit creation easier... Basically no evidence for evolution fits creation in anything, I don't know why you keep saying this idiotic shit. The age of the earth or the universe doesn't fit creationism. If you consider humans to be stand-alone (dropped on earth as we are, not evolving from the created proto-human), there should be something astoundingly unique about us, and biologically, there really isn't. The search has been quite exhaustive. There is literally no evidence supporting creationism.

and since evolution talk is mostly contradictory... If you say so
and since even the knowledgeable evolutionists admit this... Sure thing buddy

[Astargath]

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :







That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

[BADecker]

If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpg

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpg

That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

Evolution has been shown so many times to be an absolutely ridiculous thing, that any theory opposing it would NOT involve the physical sciences. Rather, the theory would revolve around the way that some scientists attempt to keep a rubbish hypothesis alive as a theory, when it has been proven over and over to be a rubbish hypothesis.

However, if any scientist developed a theory like that, the scientists that wanted to keep the stupid evolution theory alive, would go about attempting to apply that "rubbish hypothesis theory" to itself, thereby dissolving the whole thing.

When you look at evolution theory, and the tons of contradictory info included in it, along with the definite fact that evolution is not known to be a fact, you find out what evolution theory really is. What is it? It is political science directing the minds of naive people towards the physical sciences regarding evolution, when all the time evolution theory is political science.

What is political science? Political science is the idea that if you can out-talk your opponent, then you are right... even if you are totally wrong... and even if you use lies to do your out-talking.

Evolution theory doesn't match anything that is real and practical, except for political science.

Evolution is a hoax.

[inooll00]

I even suspect that the allegedly ancient human fossils that were once used were not really what the inventors found. It is an ancient primate fossil.