Evolution is a hoax

[Przemax]

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

I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches.  That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will.

Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis.

If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing.

I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life.

But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy.

[maremostro]

eVOLUTION IS REAL

IS not a hoax at all . Life have been evolving since emerging frromm the first cells formed in the goo. To adapt to enviroment and spread increasing chances of urvival.

TO THE MOON TO MARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[craZyLovE0916]

I'm religious, and don't see how evolution isn't real. It's proven essentially through decades of scientific studies.

[Przemax]

eVOLUTION IS REAL

IS not a hoax at all . Life have been evolving since emerging frromm the first cells formed in the goo. To adapt to enviroment and spread increasing chances of urvival.

TO THE MOON TO MARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two bariers that you do not acknowledge that science had not overcome.

1. No goo had ever seen to produce aminoacids needed for even the simplest of life form.
2. No hybridisation, adoption, mutation, natural selection had ever been observed to cross the barrier of making a new specie that can not breed with other speciment of the same specie but could give somehow new offsprings.

So.... Good luck with those... Right now God is proven right with his words and laws that - place the barrier on 1. point and 2. point. And it was proven to be true.

PM me if science will overcome those barriers. I would be shocked.

[Astargath]

eVOLUTION IS REAL

IS not a hoax at all . Life have been evolving since emerging frromm the first cells formed in the goo. To adapt to enviroment and spread increasing chances of urvival.

TO THE MOON TO MARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two bariers that you do not acknowledge that science had not overcome.

1. No goo had ever seen to produce aminoacids needed for even the simplest of life form.
2. No hybridisation, adoption, mutation, natural selection had ever been observed to cross the barrier of making a new specie that can not breed with other speciment of the same specie but could give somehow new offsprings.

So.... Good luck with those... Right now God is proven right with his words and laws that - place the barrier on 1. point and 2. point. And it was proven to be true.

PM me if science will overcome those barriers. I would be shocked.

Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

[Astargath]

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

I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches.  That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will.

Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis.

If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing.

I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life.

But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy.

Again you are talking a lot and saying too little. You indeed have no theory of creation, creation is regarded as junk science or pseudo science. The theory of evolution is the best we have until someone can come up with something better.

[Przemax]

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

I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches.  That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will.

Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis.

If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing.

I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life.

But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy.

Again you are talking a lot and saying too little. You indeed have no theory of creation, creation is regarded as junk science or pseudo science. The theory of evolution is the best we have until someone can come up with something better.

Maybe creationism is junk, but theory of evolution is a junk proven to be false.

Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Good luck in awaiting your Messiah of evolution.

[Vod]

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current?

That's not a question.  There doesn't have to be a "maker".

I remember being around eight years old when I asked my mother who created her god.  She said he had always existed.  I understood right then if god didn't need to be created then nothing else did.

Good luck in awaiting your Messiah of evolution.

Science?  Unlike your messiah, ours sticks around and has repeatable and verifiable outcomes. 

[Przemax]

That's not a question.  There doesn't have to be a "maker".

I remember being around eight years old when I asked my mother who created her god.  She said he had always existed.  I understood right then if god didn't need to be created then nothing else did.

Can your thoughts preexist the action? That is how God can preexist the world. Who created your thoughts? Does your thoughts need to be created? Not quite, sometimes they just happen. That is why God may just happen to be. Can you live all your life again just before you die? Yes in a one second pr even less. It is the experience just before death.

As you say - you had 8 year old. Your conception of time was childish. It still is .

Laws can exist by their own if their outcome is logically implied from randomness. Some of the laws of nature defies that premise.

Science?  Unlike your messiah, ours sticks around and has repeatable and verifiable outcomes.  Smiley

That was a sarcasm......... But what ever man.

[Astargath]

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

I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches.  That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will.

Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis.

If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing.

I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life.

But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy.

Again you are talking a lot and saying too little. You indeed have no theory of creation, creation is regarded as junk science or pseudo science. The theory of evolution is the best we have until someone can come up with something better.

Maybe creationism is junk, but theory of evolution is a junk proven to be false.

Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Good luck in awaiting your Messiah of evolution.

Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

[patarfweefwee]

If we follow the original post's logic. Then all of us would just be single celled organisms. We all started from one species if a single celled organism and lo and behold we still have single celled organisms. Evolution explains the relationship of an environment to the specific species living in it. A weaker species will die if they could not adapt. What happened to apes, monkeys and humans is that these three species branched out from it's ancestors but could still adapt to it's environment

[Vod]

Who created your thoughts? Does your thoughts need to be created? Not quite, sometimes they just happen.

Nothing needs to be created.  Evolution proves that. 

[raizhur19]

well TS, in order to evolve, many aspects are considered and not all have to adapt in order to survive. those only who needs to change to be fit must change so theres also other species that dont need to evolve in order to survive

[Vod]

well TS, in order to evolve, many aspects are considered and not all have to adapt in order to survive. those only who needs to change to be fit must change so theres also other species that dont need to evolve in order to survive

An organism does not need to evolve if it has a safe environment and a stable food supply.

Near the bottom of the oceans, where nothing much changes, one celled organisms still exist from billions of years ago.  

[Bugsbey]

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

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

Lets assume that fact that we descended from monkeys are true. Why there are still monkeys around you ask. Well first of all, i guess that not all monkeys would be able to evolve. Some of them would stay monkeys, and that explain your question. And it would take a lot of time for evolution, from one specie to another.

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

[Vod]

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

Hey, we have cars.  Why are horses still around?   

[Przemax]

Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Proven false but not finding anything that the theory claimed it should be abundant - like transitional fossils of for example human. Proven false by abiogenesis, and proven false by not observing what it claims - mainly the seperation of species.

I would guess they say millions of years. There are several problems with that.

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.
2. The process of evolution is constant - so it should occur everywhere from time to time. You say - it takes millions of years. Why cant you assume that the process had taken millions of years untill now minus one day. Why cant you assume that one of your ring specie is just enough ready for a one more step? Why cant you assume a million of years have passed minus one day? So you see? One time they say that a ring specie is a step in the evolution. And on the other hand they say it isn't. So is it or not? Your stupid theory all the times contradicts itself. That looks like playing a soccer for a time to pass and not seriously trying to score.
3. Just get one of your ring specie that breeds like mad, stuff it with radioactive isotopes if you are so sure about your outcome. Why not do that? Becuase its fake!


Im sorry but there is no excuse for a failure here.

[bkbirge]

You are confusing the process of evolution with a comic book.



Let me know when you figure out how to accelerate the natural mutagenic rate "thousands and thousands" of times.


Despite hopes that the processes of molecular evolution would be simple, clock-like and essentially universal, variation in the rate of molecular evolution is manifest at all levels of biological organization. Furthermore, it has become clear that rate variation has a systematic component: rate of molecular evolution can vary consistently with species body size, population dynamics, lifestyle and location. This suggests that the rate of molecular evolution should be considered part of life-history variation between species, which must be taken into account when interpreting DNA sequence differences between lineages.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679939/

[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?

You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:

...

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

...

[BADecker]

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

Hey, we have cars.  Why are horses still around?   

Because horses eat grass and other plants...the ancient plants from which coal and oil were made underground...so that we have fuel for the cars.

Why are cars still around?