Evolution is a hoax

[o_e_l_e_o]

Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right.

I have mountains of evidence supporting my position. You have repeatedly failed to discredit any of it or provide any counter-evidence of your own.

That makes me right.

[1714813650]

1714813650

[Astargath]

Those are wrong premises. You cannot assume the changed experiments and not the same experiments... Repeated means repeated. Should I give you dictionary? It means making the same once again.........

You have just a big problems with words.... You need better dictionaries. You cannot say something is repeated when it is not repeated.... clearly........

You've made it abundantly clear you don't understand the scientific process. You can stop repeating the same incorrect point over and over again. It's boring.

No my friend you dont understand the process... You repeat the experiment wheter it is boring or not. It is either succesfull or not.

If you make another experiment it is not the same experiment . It is a rules of language and scientific methology uses rules of language and logic. Scientific theory cannot violate the rules of logic.

Now, if you would like to actually disprove any of the studies or offer some of your own evidence, rather than squabbling about terminology, I'm listening. If not, I'll assume that you agree with me regarding the spontaneous production of amino acids.

Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right.

Doesn't make him wrong either. You are indeed deluded, you wont accept any evidence, you didn't even respond to his question. Do you agree on the spontaneous production of amino acids or not, stop rambling.

[Przemax]

Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right.

I have mountains of evidence supporting my position. You have repeatedly failed to discredit any of it or provide any counter-evidence of your own.

That makes me right.

You do not understand there is no such thing as counter-evidence. There could be the evidence to the contrary, or evidence that your statements are not true - a counter statements. I do not have to be right in order to prove you wrong. God does not have to exist in order for evolution not to exist. You do not understand logic my friend. The school has failed you. You should ask for a refund.

Mountains of evidence? Ok I agree. But for what? For natural selection and adaptation? Yeah there shit tons of it. The evidences for new specie that is separataed aka - could not breed with the specie he orignated from? There is no a single one.

Evidence for availability of abiogenesis? Veeeeeeeery shady to say the least. You only prove that - noone has cought you on the lie yet.

Evidence for almost claiming what you claim - ring species? Yeah if you change the language and definitions - you have evidences you can get away with it.

All you evolutions have evidences are word games. You name things the things they are not and that way you prove you can violate the rules of language and get away with it. Yes you have a tons of evidence for you inpunity in that regard.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You do not understand there is no such thing as counter-evidence. There could be the evidence to the contrary, or evidence that your statements are not true - a counter statements. I do not have to be right in order to prove you wrong.

But you have not proved me wrong. You have not proved a single thing.

Mountains of evidence? Ok I agree. But for what? For natural selection and adaption? Yeah there shit tons of it. The evidences for new specie that is separataed aka - could not breed with the specie he orignated from? There is no a single one.

So you've already forgotten the list of 50 or so I gave you yesterday?

If you can't access that paper, I would refer you to this handy list of approximately 50 more examples of new species being created in a lab.

Evidence for availability of abiogenesis? Veeeeeeeery shady to say the least. You only prove that - noone has cought you on the lie yet.

You have failed to discredit a single one of the multiple papers I gave you, therefore you must also believe it is true.

[Przemax]

You have failed to discredit a single one of the multiple papers I gave you, therefore you must also believe it is true.

My role was not to discredit the papers. You see? You misrepresent reality again. My role was to present that what you show is not what you speak about.

But you have not proved me wrong. You have not proved a single thing.

Not? You said Miller experiment said it made 25 amino acids. You have not admitted that it didnt. You should. The truth is the experiment produced 5 amino acids. You have not admitted that only shred of evidence about 25 acids being in the same experiment are the vials in 2008. You should because that is the truth.

You choose to change the subject, pretend not to understand me, change the definition of THE SAME EXPERIMENT. You had throw me other experiments and you had wrongly claimed that it was the same experiment. When it clearly was not the same experiment for anyone having the ability to read.

When I have presented that ok. You are right - it is 25 amino acids, but it is a very uncritical to assume it is truth without seeing a redo of the experiments. The experiment exactly representing what they claim.

And contrary to what you say - that is what scientific theory claim. In order for an experiment to be succesfull it must claim what is claimed by the hypothesis. The hypothesis should be - the vial spectrography should be exactly the same as the experiment of Miller should be - by the exact same way as he had done it in order to prove the vials to be trully the left overs from the initial experiments.

You then showed me the experiments that was before 2008. That is logically impossible to make sense. Since the hypothesis to show the validity of the vials could not be written when scientist have not even knew about any leftover vials from Miller experiment.

And the post 2008 experiments are using the vials themselves and not checking if those vials are legitimate and ressemble the possible samples of initial experiment.

So you've already forgotten the list of 50 or so I gave you yesterday?

No I have not forgotten. They changed the definition of specie. I will soon give you a detailed answer about that.

If I remember the Astargath had gave me this link. It is somewhere here in this topic. I had disprove the validity of 10th... and gave up. Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them? Why? You will not change your mind. Pick some of them. You choose - so choose the hardest to disprove.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I still cannot fathom why you are yet again caught up with 2008 as some arbitrary cut off.

Here are the facts:

Miller-Urey produced amino acids.
Multiple other experiments have also produced up to 33 amino acids.
You have failed to produce any valid criticism or evidence to the contrary, therefore these facts stand.
Argument is over.

You can play stupid word games all day long, claiming scientists "changed the definition of specie", but it doesn't change the facts.
Evolution is a fact, and you have failed to even come close to proving otherwise.

[Przemax]

I still cannot fathom why you are yet again caught up with 2008 as some arbitrary cut off.

Here are the facts:

Miller-Urey produced amino acids.
Multiple other experiments have also produced up to 33 amino acids.
You have failed to produce any valid criticism or evidence to the contrary, therefore these facts stand.
Argument is over.

You can play stupid word games all day long, claiming scientists "changed the definition of specie", but it doesn't change the facts.
Evolution is a fact, and you have failed to even come close to proving otherwise.

I have explained it to you why 2008 cut off. Im sorry. I cannot make it easier. Ask someone else to explain that to you...

Multiple other are not Miller Urey experiment... do not ran away from the answer. Lets just finish the initial talk.

I play stupid word games? I just presented you a concise reason why you do it yourself. Listen.... Find someone to explain it to you what I had wrote ok? Because you are clearly unable to understand me.

Quote
So you've already forgotten the list of 50 or so I gave you yesterday?

No I have not forgotten. They changed the definition of specie. I will soon give you a detailed answer about that.

If I remember the Astargath had gave me this link. It is somewhere here in this topic. I had disprove the validity of 10th... and gave up. Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them? Why? You will not change your mind. Pick some of them. You choose - so choose the hardest to disprove.

Pick 5 hardest species...... Ofcourse I gave up not because it is unable to do - but is very much time consuming and the answers are on the internet. All of those were debunked.

[BADecker]

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

[BADecker]

When are you providing proof of creationism?

The start of the proof for creationism is showing the fact that evolution is a hoax. The rest of the proof is for a different topic.

It's really not and you never proved that evolution is a hoax. You are like notbatman, you think somehow evolution is a global conspiracy for some unknown reason.

Like the post above this one, the need for proof is in the finding of something. Since there is no proof for evolution, and since all the evidence can fit things other than evolution (adaption), so far...

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

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

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

Actually they're still monkeys because they could still survive their environment with the genetic mutation they still have. Much like the crocodile, it's design is from the basic dinosaur's but still they didn't become birds at all. Much like how we breed toy dogs but there are still wolves. The reason a species survives because they could still adapt to their environment. Evolution actually explains all these. I just hope we don't put creationism into this.

Actually, nothing became anything else. We don't have any proof for it... at least not in the way that evolutionists suggest.

[BADecker]

No... It is not me who fail to discredit. It was you failed to provide it and you called redoing the experiment when you showed just different experiments. You failed to stay on track and you manipulated the reader - of my credibility when it was you who was ought to be thought what is to redo the experiment.

It is you who fails to recognize what is science and what is experiment and what is the need of critical inquiry when it comes to science.

You told me you had the proves they had redone the experiments when the scientific experiment are ought to have the repeatability. You seem to don't know what that is.

You seem to be fine with the antiscientific premise that it is ok for an experiment to give the different result each time. It is not the same experiment if it gives the different results. If the results are somehow different one as a scientist should be extremely cautious why. And you just bash me for being cautious - when that is what scientific premise is all about - being critical and cautious.

Again, I assumed you understood that experiments that are repeated and redone are generally modified in some small ways to prove some new points. There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved. This is basic science 101. Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

My original points still stand, however. There are literally hundreds of experiments of different early Earth conditions, all producing amino acids. You have failed to discredit this in any way shape or form.

Not one of the experiments produces amino acids in the way necessary for life. In fact, while some of the experiments produce amino acids necessary for life, they destroy some of the other amino acids necessary for life, at the same time, in the process of their making. This shows that life couldn't come about by random amino acid formation. Or do you have proof by actually making life from a bunch of amino acids?

[Przemax]

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

One cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove God does not exist.

All I can say is that you lie some of the time, and sometimes you misguide, and sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes you do not understand something.

Theory of evolution exist.... ok.... That only mean of their craftiness because they bring no fruits thereof. There are no fruits of evolution. And being fruitless means falseness.

Yeah I know what they say - it was proven in software LOL (that is the most laughable I cannot even grasp the level of depravaty of the person having such an argument), in drugs... Well drugs proves to be false many times as well based on false statistics, and based on DNA studies... But Dna studies does not require evolution to even exist. So its all false hot air. And that it is basis to some "sciences" with the evolution or evolutionary in it.

You know? One can make a studies based on world of warcraft you know? It could be made science if one would really want that. The science of economy of the world or warcraft based on the Micheal Jackson.

And one can even make the argument that the world of warcraft is true because people are playing it. Yeah... it is somewhat real... So what?

It have its uses because someone had made the research that the increase of mana of the character could increase the happiness of the player.

[BADecker]

All you achieved is me wanting to puke how insencere a human being can be. I get the goose bumps once I see such a people that does not know the importance of honesty, critical thinking if it comes to science, having the importance to define the matters what they speak - the core values of a good scientist and others non scientific because they have that values.

I am just discouraged heavily to even want to show you how many logical error you had made. It would take a loooooong time and would achieve nothing, because people in this forum might be ignorant, so you appealing to their ignorance might have worked. Sadly. Know one thing... Every dirty tricks and every lie is seen by the almighty..... You will be really shocked in the end.....

And yes sadly - that might be called scientific if one makes experiment until finally they get the right result - the most recent is being thought to be the truth, so people ignore the others. I know. You can fake the results of the last experiment - that is from 2008. And if everyone would be discouraged from redoing the experiment - it sadly will be called a science. It would have nothing to do with honesty, truth and critical thinking, but it will sadly be called science...

You are right... It is scientific on paper. It defies and corrupts everything that science stands for, but if someone would be judged in court he could defend the case - that yes it is scientific on paper.

And every little evolutionist would call themselves scientist because they are only quoting the "scientific work" they had not lied themselves. Such a white washing resembles me of Nazi's that were just saying - I was only following orders... I didnt knew it was a fraud - I was only quoting orders.... I mean papers, without checking their vailidty. They wouldnt lie to me would they? Like nazis would say - they would not want any bad things would they?

If you are not disgusted by that...... What can I say.......

Incoherent rambling. Invoking Godwin's Law is widely accepted to mean you have lost the argument.

I would ask for maybe the tenth time (I've lost count) for you to provide a single shred of evidence for your position, but I know that you have none. Unless you can provide some new evidence, rather than just rambling nonsensically about the Nazis, this argument is over.

But since this is the evolution thread, and since evolution is the thing that has to be proven, show us some proof that is distinctly proof for evolution, and isn't potential proof for anything else. Amino acid talk for evolution is just that, a whole bunch of malarky talk. There isn't any proof that a bunch of amino acids could ever form life all by themselves. Scientists barely come close to making amino acids into life with all their best efforts. So, how could it ever happen by accident?

[BADecker]

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

One cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove God does not exist.

All I can say is that you lie some of the time, and sometimes you misguide, and sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes you do not understand something.

Theory of evolution exist.... ok.... That only mean of their craftiness because they bring no fruits thereof. There are no fruits of evolution. And being fruitless means falseness.

Yeah I know what they say - it was proven in software LOL (that is the most laughable I cannot even grasp the level of depravaty of the person having such an argument), in drugs... Well drugs proves to be false many times as well based on false statistics, and based on DNA studies... But Dna studies does not require evolution to even exist. So its all false hot air.

Quite correct. So far, evolution is one of the big hoaxes that has been foisted onto unsuspecting people. But it makes a lot of money for the universities, and for the people who are the leaders among those who go digging and grubbing in the dirt around the world.

Did you ever notice that a lot of the digging is done by students, who work for free, just so that they get a better grade at the university? But the treasures they find are kept by the university, or the team leader.

[BADecker]

There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved

Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?

Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......

IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.

So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.

Standard troll practices. Twist the topic around so that the fact of evolution never having been prove in even one instance is hidden. Then make it look like the failure lies in something else that is anti-evolution.

I like how you go on and troll all around. Your trolling failures roll off your back like water off a duck. Yet you simply keep on going with more trolling. They must be paying you an awful lot so it doesn't even bother you to destroy any dignity you might have had.

[BADecker]

There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved

Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?

Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......

IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.

So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.

It took a while of going in increasingly moronic circles, but we got there in the end. He finally accept the facts.

Also, if the past 30-ish posts taught us anything, it is that you will be waiting a loooong time for any creationist evidence whatsoever.

The thing that this thread is teaching us is, there isn't even one piece of proof for evolution. Do you have one? Show us.

Evolution is a hoax.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them?

So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.

nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else

Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.


I'm done with this argument. I have provided mountains and mountains of evidence which you have both failed to counter even once. The very fact you use words like "accident" and "random" shows that you have a deep, deep ignorance about science and evolution, and zero willingness to learn. You can play your word games and make stupid points about World of Warcraft and students as long as you like, but until I see a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, I'll consider this argument won.

[Przemax]

So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.

Im saying there are 50 or so misunderstandings based on language tricks and deception. Here... Let me explain. Give me your world of warcraft speciments. Or are you scared?

You can give me the troll or a dwarf. The trolls are proven to have a lot of stamina. There are a lot of evidences that trolls can beat the dwarfs 1vs1 mountains of evidences.

No sorry... Im serious give me 5 of examples from you pile 50 from your mountain of evidences.

Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.

Countless? This 50? That you won't randomly select 5? I Actually answered to 5 of them myself in this topic. Now you search it... I have done all the works searching your clues.

I give you options to not blame me that 45 of your other speciation is right with the definition or contradict creationism so that it proves evolution. Pick them randomly.

deep ignorance about science

What is worse? Deep ignorance of science, or a deep ignorance of logic? I would say the latter, because science involves logic.

I'll consider this argument won.

Ok you won. Anything that makes you happy. You basicly say - I have won - therefore I ran away and I won't choose 5 species. It is like Mao Tsetung with his victory when he was retreating.

I agree - you and evolution are ment to be together. You have absolutely convinced me about that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you

For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.

[Astargath]

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

Evolution is proven, do you have any evidence suggesting is a hoax?