Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

Ignoring my last post I see. No one has claimed that evolution theory is perfect, in fact I said many times is simply the best we have right now, science works that way, it evolves in a sense, heh. If it turns out that we were wrong about some things, science simply discards them and makes a new theory, until then, evolution theory still prevails.

That's a mighty noble and practical thing you say. Especially the part about the theory not being perfect.

So, guess what part of the Theory of Evolution is not perfect? All of it. The fact that it continues to try to find evolution, when over the past years since Darwin, all there is, is talk.

Oh, sure, there are experiments and diggings. None of them are evolution without the talk.

There is no proof for evolution in all of it.

Evolutionists looking for evolution are like a mouse in a maze looking for some non-existent cheese. Look and look. Then look some more.

Now that's not the problem with the evolution scene. There's nothing wrong with looking for evolution in every corner with every iota of energy and cleverness you have, or even for thousands of years. Here's what the problem is.

The problem is publishing paperwork that says evolution exists, when there is nothing - not the slightest scrap - of evolution ever having been proven at all... while at the same time there are almost countless failures in finding evolution. The problem is the lying that evolution exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

[1713295253]

1713295253

[1713295253]

1713295253

[Astargath]

I'm not sure if you're trolling with the "muslims invented evolution"-bit. I'm sure devout muslims hate the thought of evolution just as much as you do Smiley

Ehhhhh..... Google it. Most muslims have no problems with evolution. And you think I do troll? When you do not even google? You just say what you think..... Ok.... As you have said you know almost nothing about the subject...

Hey there, finally I can get back to you. I didn't say that the bible originated from the Torah, but that some parts of it did. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge which scripture came first, so I'm not gonna.

You don't have to know anything about it. I HAVE TOLD YOU! BIBLE IS THE TORAH. What don't you get. Every word in the Torah EVERY word of it is in the Bible - should I make it bold? There are a book of prophets in the Bible that are not Torah - that is a Tanah - the original Jewish Bible. We have the SAME BIBLE! What don't you get? It is the same thing. We have an additional books that Jewish do not have called the New Testament. You do not have to know anything ok? You just have to read with understanding what I have written......

You said something to the effect of "editing the bible is forbidden". I find that interesting, as I'm sure you're aware that the bible itself, in its over 2000 years of existence, has been abundantly edited? And how could it not? Simply translating text from one language to another requires stylistic decisions and interpretation by the translator. For example, when the Torah was translated from Hebrew to Greek in 250 BC; or compare different bible versions - there's over a hundred different versions in English alone which deviate from each other in different aspects. If this is not editing, what is?

If you do not see the difference between editing the original material that is still there and translations, then I am speechless... I rest my case. There is no way we could communicate like a rational beings.

And this doesn't even touch on the elephant in the room - the fact that the very books of the bible haven been selected by clergymen. Over many centuries parts of the bible have been added or taken out. That's why today the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox versions differ significantly from each other and from the Septuaginta, the original Greek bible (or rather the old testament).

There are more books that have been selected than there were books that were deselected. You can read them all. I do have my doubts about them if some should be labelled as a holy scripture additionaly. But the ones that are there are 100% there for a reason. Have you read the claimed text that was supposed to be holy? They are hmmm sometimes weird. I know weirdness does not mean anything, but in the Bible are 100% proof texts that everyone can agree upon.


Protestant and Catholic versions differ within 3 books I think. Very short books, that plays absolutely no role in the Bible. If you are talking about the translations - yes they do differ, but what stand before you and original text? Nothing!

Let me help you guys out with that one by rephrasing your question "Why are there still Africans around when there's African-Americans?"; "Why are there still lizards when there's snakes?" etc. See what I mean?

No. You do not understand that creationism does not think that people do not adapt. But making comparison with African and Afro-Americans, and lizards and snakes just shows you, like every evolutionist overstate the matter of beings.

Africans and Afro-Americans are the homo sapiens. Lizards and snakes are not only different specie, but a different animal kigdom.

One line of monkey evolved into apes, one line of apes evolved into humans. Naturally, these are just categories we put on top of a process that has been going on for millions of years, so it's a bit arbitrary, but, oh well, it makes things a bit more easy to understand for our stone age brains.

Show me the monkey... What monkey and where. You do even guess where it was - in north Africa. What makes you not find a single shred of evidence? That is just silly talking. There are a lot of sand and rivers... It should be so easy to find that it should be ridiculously easy.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

[BADecker]

Ignoring my last post I see. No one has claimed that evolution theory is perfect, in fact I said many times is simply the best we have right now, science works that way, it evolves in a sense, heh. If it turns out that we were wrong about some things, science simply discards them and makes a new theory, until then, evolution theory still prevails.

That's a mighty noble and practical thing you say. Especially the part about the theory not being perfect.

So, guess what part of the Theory of Evolution is not perfect? All of it. The fact that it continues to try to find evolution, when over the past years since Darwin, all there is, is talk.

Oh, sure, there are experiments and diggings. None of them are evolution without the talk.

There is no proof for evolution in all of it.

Evolutionists looking for evolution are like a mouse in a maze looking for some non-existent cheese. Look and look. Then look some more.

Now that's not the problem with the evolution scene. There's nothing wrong with looking for evolution in every corner with every iota of energy and cleverness you have, or even for thousands of years. Here's what the problem is.

The problem is publishing paperwork that says evolution exists, when there is nothing - not the slightest scrap - of evolution ever having been proven at all... while at the same time there are almost countless failures in finding evolution. The problem is the lying that evolution exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Hey, maybe you're right, maybe we should disregard over a hundred year's worth of research by countless independent scholars and scientists and instead obey the commands of this weird old book that tells us that mixing fabric, eating pork or touching menstruating women is taboo.
Maybe you should start first and get rid of this devil computer, which functions according to the findings of countless independent scholars and scientists, cause we all now what that is worth.

Or hey, maybe try out that Quran-thing, or one of the thousands of other religions that mankind invented

Why in the world do you want to disregard research? Rather, look at what the research is showing you, right? Out of all that research, there is not even one proof of evolution. When are we going to realize that evolution doesn't exist... that all the talk of evolutionists is simply talk, based on hopes and dreams and desires of a bunch of people who WISH that evolution existed.

There is this tremendous body of scientific research that has gone into finding out that evolution does not exist... at least not like its theory says. Why not put an equal amount of research into the things written into the religious writings to find out which ones, if any, are near correct? After all, anybody can look into almost any religious book and find moral guidelines that are exactly what we need to make peaceful living with each other work, if we follow the religious writings.

The fact that many people don't understand what obeying, "the commands of this weird old book that tells us that mixing fabric, eating pork or touching menstruating women is taboo," has to do with life and living, shows that much more scientific research is needed. After all, there are very easily understood, logical sections in this old book. We need the research to see why the more or less not logical parts might be logical in ways we don't readily understand.

In other words:
1. Evolution research shows us there is no evolution (at least that fits the theory);
2. Religious books tell us many logical and moral things that fit life and the way things work;
3. Why not stop researching for what is proven to not exist (evolution), and start research on what is proven to fit nature and life (religion), so that we can gain understanding of the marvels hidden in the parts of it we don't understand?

Your thinking is kinda backwards.

Evolution is a hoax, religion isn't.

[BADecker]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

If we had put as much scientific research into creationism as we have put into evolution, we would have long ago found that creation is reality, just as we have found that evolution doesn't exist.

[Astargath]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

If we had put as much scientific research into creationism as we have put into evolution, we would have long ago found that creation is reality, just as we have found that evolution doesn't exist.

That's a nice post, you haven't refuted anything, though. The evidence against creationism is ridiculously big. Unless, as I said before, you think pretty much all science is wrong.

[BADecker]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

If we had put as much scientific research into creationism as we have put into evolution, we would have long ago found that creation is reality, just as we have found that evolution doesn't exist.

That's a nice post, you haven't refuted anything, though. The evidence against creationism is ridiculously big. Unless, as I said before, you think pretty much all science is wrong.

1. There isn't any REAL proof for evolution. There is lots of talk about evolution.

2. There is a lot of talk against creation. There isn't really enough scientific study about it to be sure about it one way or another. Consider that Stephen Hawking believes in creation, even though he might not use the word "creation" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31657588#msg31657588.

You really have things a bit backward.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

If we had put as much scientific research into creationism as we have put into evolution, we would have long ago found that creation is reality, just as we have found that evolution doesn't exist.

That's a nice post, you haven't refuted anything, though. The evidence against creationism is ridiculously big. Unless, as I said before, you think pretty much all science is wrong.

1. There isn't any REAL proof for evolution. There is lots of talk about evolution.

2. There is a lot of talk against creation. There isn't really enough scientific study about it to be sure about it one way or another. Consider that Stephen Hawking believes in creation, even though he might not use the word "creation" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31657588#msg31657588.

You really have things a bit backward.

Evolution is a hoax.

1. How do you know?

2. Hawking says the universe had no clear "bang." You can wind back the clock to the edges of those first moments of existence, but asking what came before would be like asking why you can keep walking north when you get to the North Pole. Time, as we define it, loses its meaning as the universe shrinks down. I don't see that as admission of belief in creation.

[BADecker]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. If you have an argument against evolution I'm happy to read it, otherwise don't claim it's a hoax without evidence.

Again with the creationism? One thing is to be skeptical about evolution and another is to blindly believe in ''creation'' The evidence against creationism is beyond overwhelming. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Unless you claim almost every science is wrong, of course. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#In_summary

Good luck.

If we had put as much scientific research into creationism as we have put into evolution, we would have long ago found that creation is reality, just as we have found that evolution doesn't exist.

That's a nice post, you haven't refuted anything, though. The evidence against creationism is ridiculously big. Unless, as I said before, you think pretty much all science is wrong.

1. There isn't any REAL proof for evolution. There is lots of talk about evolution.

2. There is a lot of talk against creation. There isn't really enough scientific study about it to be sure about it one way or another. Consider that Stephen Hawking believes in creation, even though he might not use the word "creation" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31657588#msg31657588.

You really have things a bit backward.

Evolution is a hoax.

1. How do you know?

2. Hawking says the universe had no clear "bang." You can wind back the clock to the edges of those first moments of existence, but asking what came before would be like asking why you can keep walking north when you get to the North Pole. Time, as we define it, loses its meaning as the universe shrinks down. I don't see that as admission of belief in creation.

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

I am beginning to understand how I need to be more gentle with you. You have a science/religion mind-block, similar to the one that notbatman has about globe earth. It isn't your fault... or is it? Whatever, your lack of understanding about what Hawking says shows that it's there.

[MJK_Anfaenger]

Why not put an equal amount of research into the things written into the religious writings to find out which ones, if any, are near correct? After all, anybody can look into almost any religious book and find moral guidelines that are exactly what we need to make peaceful living with each other work, if we follow the religious writings.

I actually agree with you on this one. Any religious book may be interpreted as the interpreter sees fit. That's why there are both Christians feeding the homeless and Christians blowing up abortion clinics. My question to you, however, would be, why rely on these religious books for moral guidance, at all? Or pick one religion and put it above all others, as believers do. Don't they all have the same claim to be the one true religion? I don't believe that non-believers are more prone to violence or crime etc. by the way, if that's what you think; there's no empirical evidence that I know of that would show such a correlation.

I really don't know why you keep saying that there's no proof for evolution, I guess we just have to agree to disagree!

In the meantime I'm gonna stick with the body of scientific evidence, built on the scientific method, that makes the Internet, brain surgery and space travel possible and according to which evolution theory is the best explanation for how life developed on earth that we have

[MJK_Anfaenger]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

[prasanna1992]

Don't we live in a world of proof? where is the proof? I mean you have "the book", which has a lot of authors MANY times contradicting each other - what else?.

[Astargath]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

You couldn't have said it better, that's exactly the problem with these type of people. They will easily believe a fairy tail that has no evidence yet so against well established scientific theories. He will keep yelling ''there is no proof'' bla bla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Start here badecker, for proof of evolution.

[MJK_Anfaenger]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

You couldn't have said it better, that's exactly the problem with these type of people. They will easily believe a fairy tail that has no evidence yet so against well established scientific theories. He will keep yelling ''there is no proof'' bla bla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Start here badecker, for proof of evolution.

Thanks, man. I think it's a difference of mindset. If, hypothetically, you or I were shown irrrefutable empirical evidence that in fact there is, say, a Christian God, we'd have to accept it, whether we like it or not. Would it be bothersome? Sure, but if the evidence follows scientific, i.e. logical rules, so does the result and there wouldn't be much of a problem integrating these new findings into our world view. We don't lose anything.

As a religious person (I'm talking young earth religious, there's plenty of logically thinking religious people), if you accept just one scientific finding as fact (like the yeast example), then what stops you from accepting the next and the next and the next? In the end, nothing of what your life and personality was built upon is left. You lose everything.

The more you stand to lose, the stronger you fight it. That's why logical arguments and evidence as you presented here will not get through to the people you or I argue with.

No disrespect is meant to any religious person reading this, by the way. I appreciate your perspective. But this is what I think may motivate many believers.

[BADecker]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

You couldn't have said it better, that's exactly the problem with these type of people. They will easily believe a fairy tail that has no evidence yet so against well established scientific theories. He will keep yelling ''there is no proof'' bla bla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Start here badecker, for proof of evolution.

Thanks, man. I think it's a difference of mindset. If, hypothetically, you or I were shown irrrefutable empirical evidence that in fact there is, say, a Christian God, we'd have to accept it, whether we like it or not. Would it be bothersome? Sure, but if the evidence follows scientific, i.e. logical rules, so does the result and there wouldn't be much of a problem integrating these new findings into our world view. We don't lose anything.

As a religious person (I'm talking young earth religious, there's plenty of logically thinking religious people), if you accept just one scientific finding as fact (like the yeast example), then what stops you from accepting the next and the next and the next? In the end, nothing of what your life and personality was built upon is left. You lose everything.

The more you stand to lose, the stronger you fight it. That's why logical arguments and evidence as you presented here will not get through to the people you or I argue with.

No disrespect is meant to any religious person reading this, by the way. I appreciate your perspective. But this is what I think may motivate many believers.

The thing that shoots down the evolution idea is something that you said. It's the little wording, "irrrefutable empirical evidence." There is no irrefutable empirical evidence that evolution exists. All the evidence fits concepts other than evolution better than they fit evolution.

In addition, there are hosts of, but several major, pieces of irrefutable empirical evidence that show that evolution can't exist. Because of these, the irrefutable empirical evidence relied upon by evolutionists, absolutely fits something else better.

Google "evolution is impossible" or any other set of words to find reasons why evolution can't have happened according to evolution theory. One piece of irrefutable empirical evidence that might not be easily found in searches, is cause and effect.

[Dertcoin]

There really is proof though,

Our own fetal cycle somewhat derives from virus materials because our evolutionary ancestors incorporated virus dna into our genome.

It's one possible theory for why cancer happens.  It's because your cell's dna gets damaged enough that the ancient viral genes are activated

[Astargath]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

You couldn't have said it better, that's exactly the problem with these type of people. They will easily believe a fairy tail that has no evidence yet so against well established scientific theories. He will keep yelling ''there is no proof'' bla bla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Start here badecker, for proof of evolution.

Thanks, man. I think it's a difference of mindset. If, hypothetically, you or I were shown irrrefutable empirical evidence that in fact there is, say, a Christian God, we'd have to accept it, whether we like it or not. Would it be bothersome? Sure, but if the evidence follows scientific, i.e. logical rules, so does the result and there wouldn't be much of a problem integrating these new findings into our world view. We don't lose anything.

As a religious person (I'm talking young earth religious, there's plenty of logically thinking religious people), if you accept just one scientific finding as fact (like the yeast example), then what stops you from accepting the next and the next and the next? In the end, nothing of what your life and personality was built upon is left. You lose everything.

The more you stand to lose, the stronger you fight it. That's why logical arguments and evidence as you presented here will not get through to the people you or I argue with.

No disrespect is meant to any religious person reading this, by the way. I appreciate your perspective. But this is what I think may motivate many believers.

I would like a God to exist. I was a believer when I was younger. If God and heaven existed it would be wonderful, however I can't just believe they do based on nothing. There is this idea that religious people have that we somehow don't want to accept god deliberately. I'm fairly sure anyone would like a heaven to exist we just don't have enough evidence for it.

There is also this idea of: '' you don't lose anything for believing in god''

First of all, it's impossible to force myself to believe in something and second, how would I know which god to pick?

[tuikindu]

There are many similarities in the basic forms of biological early life, and the consistency of evolutionary laws has been recognized. But this is not to say that they share a common ancestor. The concept of a biological species is that there can be no common reproductive offspring between two clocks. Therefore, it is a paradox that they come from a common ancestor.

Through the study found that biological morphology and meteorite strike energy model presents the high degree of consistency, therefore, speculated that biological semina were recorded the meteorite strike energy model, and in the earth's specific environment conditions for germination, and continuously with the environmental change.

Early scientists may be wrong about natural phenomena, but they are not necessarily deceptive, and may be the result of the limitations of scientific historical development.

[Astargath]

Evolution science has proved evolution is a hoax by finding no proof, and not even any clear evidence in favor of evolution.

The thing is that when presented with evidence for evolution (of which there is a staggering amount), you will just say "oh it's not evolution, it's adaption" or "this evidence doesn't explain everything, therefore it's incomplete and invalid". While at the same time you don't apply such criticism to the tenets of your faith, which you simply accept at face value, because doubting it would be sinful (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

You couldn't have said it better, that's exactly the problem with these type of people. They will easily believe a fairy tail that has no evidence yet so against well established scientific theories. He will keep yelling ''there is no proof'' bla bla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Start here badecker, for proof of evolution.

Thanks, man. I think it's a difference of mindset. If, hypothetically, you or I were shown irrrefutable empirical evidence that in fact there is, say, a Christian God, we'd have to accept it, whether we like it or not. Would it be bothersome? Sure, but if the evidence follows scientific, i.e. logical rules, so does the result and there wouldn't be much of a problem integrating these new findings into our world view. We don't lose anything.

As a religious person (I'm talking young earth religious, there's plenty of logically thinking religious people), if you accept just one scientific finding as fact (like the yeast example), then what stops you from accepting the next and the next and the next? In the end, nothing of what your life and personality was built upon is left. You lose everything.

The more you stand to lose, the stronger you fight it. That's why logical arguments and evidence as you presented here will not get through to the people you or I argue with.

No disrespect is meant to any religious person reading this, by the way. I appreciate your perspective. But this is what I think may motivate many believers.

The thing that shoots down the evolution idea is something that you said. It's the little wording, "irrrefutable empirical evidence." There is no irrefutable empirical evidence that evolution exists. All the evidence fits concepts other than evolution better than they fit evolution.

In addition, there are hosts of, but several major, pieces of irrefutable empirical evidence that show that evolution can't exist. Because of these, the irrefutable empirical evidence relied upon by evolutionists, absolutely fits something else better.

Google "evolution is impossible" or any other set of words to find reasons why evolution can't have happened according to evolution theory. One piece of irrefutable empirical evidence that might not be easily found in searches, is cause and effect.

''evidence relied upon by evolutionists, absolutely fits something else better.'' Then they would call it something else, you keep saying the same shit but every piece of evidence for evolution disproves ''creationism''

If God wanted to convince me of his existence, he would and yet he doesn't. I pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

And yet nothing happens, ever. There are no miracles. This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work.

[FluxProject]

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

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

Science is a religion.

Evolution = Unproven
Gravity = Unproven
Big Bang Theory = Unproven

While these theories remain unproven to this day, many people regard them as facts because their scientists and their governments told them that they are.

[Astargath]

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

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

Science is a religion.

Evolution = Unproven
Gravity = Unproven
Big Bang Theory = Unproven

While these theories remain unproven to this day, many people regard them as facts because their scientists and their governments told them that they are.

Gravity is ''unproven'' ?