Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

I was kind of amazed by the exchange of ideas here.

Well, for me, evolution remains to be a theory, yes, just that, a theory, until now. I don't know how Charles Darwin became a celebrity scientist right after he theorized that what we are now are different centuries and centuries ago. Perhaps because his idea was sort of radically new? The discovery actually caused a bandwagon mentality among a lot people. The entire world was stirred by his claim. Established religion was terribly shaken to its core. School curricula are challenged. The people's comfort zone was rendered uncomfortable. 

And again, the classic, it's just a theory. Before saying more stupid shit, read what a scientific theory means because it's pretty much the best thing you can have in science.

Basically, a scientific theory is an educated guess about something scientific. As such, it can be modified to fit new findings.

This means that a scientific theory is not only less than a theory in the general sense of the word, but it might also be a consensus of a bunch of people who could be jokers with an political agenda rather than a desire for truth. So, that is what you are being led by in following scientific theory.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

[1714927692]

1714927692

[1714927692]

1714927692

[1714927692]

1714927692

[BADecker]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

And, of course, the testing produces no conclusive results. If it did, it would be considered scientific fact.

This is the way that a bunch of people incorporate their design ideas of what fact should be into our minds as though it is fact. They call it scientific theory, something that is constantly tested, and most often, found to be wrong somewhere down the road.

The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong, but have been found to be right so many times that there is not a scientific chance that they can be wrong.

[twthmoses]

^^^ Balance is the thing that leaves room for imagination.

For example. We look all around us and we see offspring of both plants and animals that are similar to their parents. Chickens have baby chickens. Alligators have baby alligators. Bears have baby bears. And this happens for all the forms of life. And it happens countless numbers of times all around the world, from giant whales to microscopic single celled creatures.

Never do we see chickens having baby alligators. Never do we see alligators having baby bears. Never do we see bears having anything other than baby bears. Not even once.

All of this works with such balance that we have lots of room for imagination. The thing we imagine is evolution. And the excuse for imagining evolution is that we are unwilling to recognize what we are really seeing... adaptation. Why are we unwilling to recognize adaptation? Simply because that's what we want to do.

Countless numbers of like begets like proven all over the place.
Countless forms of adaptation proven all over the place.
Not even one proven happening of evolution.

It totally doesn't make sense that smart scientists can imagine that evolution happened without having ever seen even one for-a-fact instance of it, and yet know for a fact that trillions of like-begets-like and adaptation are happening all over the place.

Evolution is a science fiction hoax.

True, offspring looks overall the same as their parents, but they are not the same, not by a longshot. Neither physical nor the actual building blocks.
They can be taller or shorter, longer legs, bigger arms, smaller hand, blue eyes, red hair – and the more extreme, two heads, four arms, 10 fingers etc..

Take a tape, copy it a million times. A copy of a copy. Do you think it’s the same song still?  This is how evolution works. No one is arguing that a chicken gives birth to a baby elephant. This is not how evolution works. Evolution takes time, lots of time, but small changes can be seen all the time, all around you. Look at your own children. Are they taller then you? maybe smarter then you? Maybe dark hair? Maybe more compact? Or all the reverse. Evolution right in front of you!

[BADecker]

^^^ Balance is the thing that leaves room for imagination.

For example. We look all around us and we see offspring of both plants and animals that are similar to their parents. Chickens have baby chickens. Alligators have baby alligators. Bears have baby bears. And this happens for all the forms of life. And it happens countless numbers of times all around the world, from giant whales to microscopic single celled creatures.

Never do we see chickens having baby alligators. Never do we see alligators having baby bears. Never do we see bears having anything other than baby bears. Not even once.

All of this works with such balance that we have lots of room for imagination. The thing we imagine is evolution. And the excuse for imagining evolution is that we are unwilling to recognize what we are really seeing... adaptation. Why are we unwilling to recognize adaptation? Simply because that's what we want to do.

Countless numbers of like begets like proven all over the place.
Countless forms of adaptation proven all over the place.
Not even one proven happening of evolution.

It totally doesn't make sense that smart scientists can imagine that evolution happened without having ever seen even one for-a-fact instance of it, and yet know for a fact that trillions of like-begets-like and adaptation are happening all over the place.

Evolution is a science fiction hoax.

True, offspring looks overall the same as their parents, but they are not the same, not by a longshot. Neither physical nor the actual building blocks.
They can be taller or shorter, longer legs, bigger arms, smaller hand, blue eyes, red hair – and the more extreme, two heads, four arms, 10 fingers etc..

Take a tape, copy it a million times. A copy of a copy. Do you think it’s the same song still?  This is how evolution works. No one is arguing that a chicken gives birth to a baby elephant. This is not how evolution works. Evolution takes time, lots of time, but small changes can be seen all the time, all around you. Look at your own children. Are they taller then you? maybe smarter then you? Maybe dark hair? Maybe more compact? Or all the reverse. Evolution right in front of you!

The programming for all of the physical, and many of the mental processes, is found in the DNA. But the forms of DNA programming that would constitute evolution have never been found.

Copy a tape a million times and you will only find devolution... never evolution.

[Astargath]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

And, of course, the testing produces no conclusive results. If it did, it would be considered scientific fact.

This is the way that a bunch of people incorporate their design ideas of what fact should be into our minds as though it is fact. They call it scientific theory, something that is constantly tested, and most often, found to be wrong somewhere down the road.

The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong, but have been found to be right so many times that there is not a scientific chance that they can be wrong.

It's like a loop with you.

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

A theory is better than a hypothesis but a fact cannot be compared to a theory, a scientific theory will incorporate a lot of facts, for example and even laws.

[BADecker]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

And, of course, the testing produces no conclusive results. If it did, it would be considered scientific fact.

This is the way that a bunch of people incorporate their design ideas of what fact should be into our minds as though it is fact. They call it scientific theory, something that is constantly tested, and most often, found to be wrong somewhere down the road.

The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong, but have been found to be right so many times that there is not a scientific chance that they can be wrong.

It's like a loop with you.

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

A theory is better than a hypothesis but a fact cannot be compared to a theory, a scientific theory will incorporate a lot of facts, for example and even laws.

And as Solomon said, "The more the words (in this case laws and facts), the less the meaning."

[Astargath]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

And, of course, the testing produces no conclusive results. If it did, it would be considered scientific fact.

This is the way that a bunch of people incorporate their design ideas of what fact should be into our minds as though it is fact. They call it scientific theory, something that is constantly tested, and most often, found to be wrong somewhere down the road.

The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong, but have been found to be right so many times that there is not a scientific chance that they can be wrong.

It's like a loop with you.

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

A theory is better than a hypothesis but a fact cannot be compared to a theory, a scientific theory will incorporate a lot of facts, for example and even laws.

And as Solomon said, "The more the words (in this case laws and facts), the less the meaning."

You said ''The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong''

You are wrong. A scientific law cannot become a scientific law. You have 4 different things, fact,theory,law,hypothesis each one will feed into the others in different ways, with laws informing hypotheses and hypotheses developing laws, and everything coming together in a big amalgam to make a theory. This is also why scientists hold the term theory in such high regard.

So in fact a scientific theory holds more weight or it's more respected among scientists.

[BADecker]

You said ''The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong''

You are wrong. A scientific law cannot become a scientific law. You have 4 different things, fact,theory,law,hypothesis each one will feed into the others in different ways, with laws informing hypotheses and hypotheses developing laws, and everything coming together in a big amalgam to make a theory. This is also why scientists hold the term theory in such high regard.

So in fact a scientific theory holds more weight or it's more respected among scientists.

Well, if you don't even understand that we are talking from the standpoint of the fact that we don't know everything, what would even be the point of stating any of this?

[Astargath]

You said ''The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong''

You are wrong. A scientific law cannot become a scientific law. You have 4 different things, fact,theory,law,hypothesis each one will feed into the others in different ways, with laws informing hypotheses and hypotheses developing laws, and everything coming together in a big amalgam to make a theory. This is also why scientists hold the term theory in such high regard.

So in fact a scientific theory holds more weight or it's more respected among scientists.

Well, if you don't even understand that we are talking from the standpoint of the fact that we don't know everything, what would even be the point of stating any of this?

What does that have to do with anything right now lmao. You are factually wrong stating that scientific laws are laws and not theories because they have never been found to be wrong.

[BADecker]

You said ''The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong''

You are wrong. A scientific law cannot become a scientific law. You have 4 different things, fact,theory,law,hypothesis each one will feed into the others in different ways, with laws informing hypotheses and hypotheses developing laws, and everything coming together in a big amalgam to make a theory. This is also why scientists hold the term theory in such high regard.

So in fact a scientific theory holds more weight or it's more respected among scientists.

Well, if you don't even understand that we are talking from the standpoint of the fact that we don't know everything, what would even be the point of stating any of this?

What does that have to do with anything right now lmao. You are factually wrong stating that scientific laws are laws and not theories because they have never been found to be wrong.

A simple example is that of big bang theory. One might take a bunch of factually accurate math, and combine it with the ideas about what goes on currently in the universe (some of which are probably quite accurate), and come up with the idea of a BB, that such a thing could exist, and that it might even be the way our universe came into being. Yet, there is so much "stuff" in the universe that is not explained by BB theory, that the possibility of a BB doesn't make it to have anything to do with our universe at all. The idea that BB has anything to do with our universe is based on consensus of a bunch of scientists and others, whose only reason for reaching that consensus is that they want to.

[Astargath]

You said ''The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong''

You are wrong. A scientific law cannot become a scientific law. You have 4 different things, fact,theory,law,hypothesis each one will feed into the others in different ways, with laws informing hypotheses and hypotheses developing laws, and everything coming together in a big amalgam to make a theory. This is also why scientists hold the term theory in such high regard.

So in fact a scientific theory holds more weight or it's more respected among scientists.

Well, if you don't even understand that we are talking from the standpoint of the fact that we don't know everything, what would even be the point of stating any of this?

What does that have to do with anything right now lmao. You are factually wrong stating that scientific laws are laws and not theories because they have never been found to be wrong.

A simple example is that of big bang theory. One might take a bunch of factually accurate math, and combine it with the ideas about what goes on currently in the universe (some of which are probably quite accurate), and come up with the idea of a BB, that such a thing could exist, and that it might even be the way our universe came into being. Yet, there is so much "stuff" in the universe that is not explained by BB theory, that the possibility of a BB doesn't make it to have anything to do with our universe at all. The idea that BB has anything to do with our universe is based on consensus of a bunch of scientists and others, whose only reason for reaching that consensus is that they want to.

''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that-

''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.''

''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.''

But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course

[ocharlliie]

Evolution cannot explain the complex designs that the universe displays. Humans and animals will generally remain the way they are. They are not evolving into something else.

[Astargath]

Evolution cannot explain the complex designs that the universe displays. Humans and animals will generally remain the way they are. They are not evolving into something else.

What complex designs? How do you know they are ''designs'' ?

[BADecker]

''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that-

''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.''

''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.''

But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course

Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run.

I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much.

[Astargath]

''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that-

''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.''

''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.''

But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course

Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run.

I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much.

What would be a ''real'' example of evolution exactly?
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.html
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

You can find thousands.


I'm sure you believe in gravity because I have seen you defend it, isn't gravity just a theory? What you seem to not understand is that a scientific theory, although it can be changed, it's the best explanation we have at the time of a certain phenomena, in this case evolution.

[BADecker]

''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that-

''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.''

''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.''

But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course

Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run.

I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much.

What would be a ''real'' example of evolution exactly?
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.html
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

You can find thousands.


I'm sure you believe in gravity because I have seen you defend it, isn't gravity just a theory? What you seem to not understand is that a scientific theory, although it can be changed, it's the best explanation we have at the time of a certain phenomena, in this case evolution.

Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.

I don't believe in gravity. Rather, I know that it exists because I use it all the time, have always used it, have never seen an example of it not working, have never heard of an example of it not working, etc.

Why gravity works is explained by theory in its lesser form, called scientific theory. You are an example of why scientific theory is weaker than theory. Simple theory is known to be theoretical. Scientific theory is suggested to be truth at times simply because a bunch of people feel like it is truth.

This means that theory express honesty - we don't know for sure - while you never know if scientific theory is being honest or not, especially if it expresses that the thing that it says is the truth.

Wouldn't you rather have honesty than delusion?

[Astargath]

''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that-

''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.''

''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.''

But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course

Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run.

I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much.

What would be a ''real'' example of evolution exactly?
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.html
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

You can find thousands.


I'm sure you believe in gravity because I have seen you defend it, isn't gravity just a theory? What you seem to not understand is that a scientific theory, although it can be changed, it's the best explanation we have at the time of a certain phenomena, in this case evolution.

Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.

I don't believe in gravity. Rather, I know that it exists because I use it all the time, have always used it, have never seen an example of it not working, have never heard of an example of it not working, etc.

Why gravity works is explained by theory in its lesser form, called scientific theory. You are an example of why scientific theory is weaker than theory. Simple theory is known to be theoretical. Scientific theory is suggested to be truth at times simply because a bunch of people feel like it is truth.

This means that theory express honesty - we don't know for sure - while you never know if scientific theory is being honest or not, especially if it expresses that the thing that it says is the truth.

Wouldn't you rather have honesty than delusion?

Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.

''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.

[BADecker]

Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.

''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.

Evolution in the form of simple change happens all the time.

Evolution according to evolution theory has never been factually seen. In addition, simple searches of the Internet show many reasons why it is impossible. The so-called debunking of these impossibilities are full of way more flaws than evolution theory alone.

Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.

Adaptation is found all over the place. A simple example is diseases becoming medicine resistant. But there is not even one factual sighting of evolution theory evolution.

[Astargath]

Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.

''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.

Evolution in the form of simple change happens all the time.

Evolution according to evolution theory has never been factually seen. In addition, simple searches of the Internet show many reasons why it is impossible. The so-called debunking of these impossibilities are full of way more flaws than evolution theory alone.

Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.

Adaptation is found all over the place. A simple example is diseases becoming medicine resistant. But there is not even one factual sighting of evolution theory evolution.

''Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.'' Yes it does, the bible clearly states how god made the earth and stars and animals instantly because he wanted, so yes, animals popped into existence. As I said I haven't seen an example of that yet, do you have one?

[BADecker]

Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.

''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.

Evolution in the form of simple change happens all the time.

Evolution according to evolution theory has never been factually seen. In addition, simple searches of the Internet show many reasons why it is impossible. The so-called debunking of these impossibilities are full of way more flaws than evolution theory alone.

Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.

Adaptation is found all over the place. A simple example is diseases becoming medicine resistant. But there is not even one factual sighting of evolution theory evolution.

''Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.'' Yes it does, the bible clearly states how god made the earth and stars and animals instantly because he wanted, so yes, animals popped into existence. As I said I haven't seen an example of that yet, do you have one?

Making things in a day or a week like the Bible says, isn't popping them into existence. You are trying to mix the Bible up with big bang.