Evolution is a hoax

[twthmoses]

Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities?

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution!

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples.

In other words, evolution as reality is possible!

Evolution is reality

[BADecker]

Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities? - Assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities exist in the attempted rebuttals against the impossibility of evolution. Evolution itself doesn't have even these legs to stand on.

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right. - You checked all the links? In this short time? What you will find if you check the links, is a variety of time frames. And that is the point... not talk of 200,000 years. The variable time frames show that science doesn't know what it is talking about regarding evolution.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion. - Actually, what is proven by the absence of 100% of the required missing links, is that they don't exist... just like evolution doesn't exist.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution! - Tying your shoes is change. It is change that doesn't fit evolution theory evolution. So, change is not evolution, just like tying your shoes is change, but not evolution.

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists - You talk about them believing in evolution or not. You talk the same way that people of the religions of the world talk about their religions. People believe their religions, and they don't believe other religions. So, you are helping to show us just what evolution is... a religion.

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples. - Blah, blah, blah. Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples of like-begets-like, without any examples of evolution. Where is the evolution? In the imaginations of a bunch of people who want to believe it. Or do you have scientific proof of even one instance of evolution?!

In other words, evolution as reality is possible! - Actually, the odds against evolution as stated in evolution theory is so great, that according to probability science, evolution is impossible.

Evolution is reality

In other words, you are helping us to see that evolution is a hoax, simply by trying to show us that it is real, but failing at it so miserably.

[Astargath]

Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities? - Assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities exist in the attempted rebuttals against the impossibility of evolution. Evolution itself doesn't have even these legs to stand on.

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right. - You checked all the links? In this short time? What you will find if you check the links, is a variety of time frames. And that is the point... not talk of 200,000 years. The variable time frames show that science doesn't know what it is talking about regarding evolution.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion. - Actually, what is proven by the absence of 100% of the required missing links, is that they don't exist... just like evolution doesn't exist.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution! - Tying your shoes is change. It is change that doesn't fit evolution theory evolution. So, change is not evolution, just like tying your shoes is change, but not evolution.

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists - You talk about them believing in evolution or not. You talk the same way that people of the religions of the world talk about their religions. People believe their religions, and they don't believe other religions. So, you are helping to show us just what evolution is... a religion.

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples. - Blah, blah, blah. Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples of like-begets-like, without any examples of evolution. Where is the evolution? In the imaginations of a bunch of people who want to believe it. Or do you have scientific proof of even one instance of evolution?!

In other words, evolution as reality is possible! - Actually, the odds against evolution as stated in evolution theory is so great, that according to probability science, evolution is impossible.

Evolution is reality

In other words, you are helping us to see that evolution is a hoax, simply by trying to show us that it is real, but failing at it so miserably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)
https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-missing-link-in-evolution-does-science-no-favors-46661
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/discovery-destroys-myth-of-missing-link-on-the-evolutionary-ladder-5360940.html
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-missing-link-myth
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

I wish badecker was able to use google so he wouldn't use the worst possible arguments against evolution.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)
https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-missing-link-in-evolution-does-science-no-favors-46661
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/discovery-destroys-myth-of-missing-link-on-the-evolutionary-ladder-5360940.html
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-missing-link-myth
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

I wish badecker was able to use google so he wouldn't use the worst possible arguments against evolution.

But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful?

At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things?

Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion.

[Astargath]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)
https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-missing-link-in-evolution-does-science-no-favors-46661
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/discovery-destroys-myth-of-missing-link-on-the-evolutionary-ladder-5360940.html
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-missing-link-myth
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

I wish badecker was able to use google so he wouldn't use the worst possible arguments against evolution.

But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful?

At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things?

Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion.

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

[BADecker]

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves.

Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution.

You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C.

Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.

What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and...

Evolution is a hoax.



P.S.   This is fun    I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution.

[Astargath]

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves.

Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution.

You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C.

Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.

What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and...

Evolution is a hoax.



P.S.   This is fun    I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution.

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

[BADecker]

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well, come on you evolutionists out there. What is wrong with the info in that Wikipedia link, above? Check in the same page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Fossil_record . What's it saying in this second link? It's saying that the fossil record is so incomplete that it doesn't have a record of evolution in it. Yet, the animals shown in earlier portions of the page say that there are missing links. Since the fossil record is incomplete, how does anybody know that any of the fossils are missing links?

It's all make believe. There aren't any missing links because evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

[BADecker]

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.

[BADecker]

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.

What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.

What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I debunked the ''missing links myth'' and provided examples of transitional fossils yet you don't want to accept evolution because it goes against your religious beliefs.

[BADecker]

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.

What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I debunked the ''missing links myth'' and provided examples of transitional fossils yet you don't want to accept evolution because it goes against your religious beliefs.

Actually, I and many others have debunked evolution. You simply don't accept it because it goes against your evolution religion.

[Astargath]

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.

What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I debunked the ''missing links myth'' and provided examples of transitional fossils yet you don't want to accept evolution because it goes against your religious beliefs.

Actually, I and many others have debunked evolution. You simply don't accept it because it goes against your evolution religion.

You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above.

[BADecker]

You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above.

As usual. Now you try to twist things to make it look like I am the one who thinks that there is a missing link.

There isn't any evolution missing link. In zillions of fossils, we haven't been able to find one that we can prove. Lots of talk. Lots of ideas. But no proof.

So, missing-link ideas, along with the rest of the evolution ideas, are simply science fiction.

Or, show us the proof for even one evolution form. Your talk isn't proof. Point us at the proof that is accepted as proof by science, not just places where scientists and quasi-scientists say they have proof without showing it. Or explain it in enough detail that we can see that it is proof.

Can't do it, right?

Evolution is a hoax. And thanks for keeping this thread alive by your lack of proof, while you are willing to talk with no proof behind what you say. More and more people are starting to wake up about the evolution hoax, just because of you. Good job!

[pendulangemas]

When I studied at junior high school and learned about evolution theory as Charles Darwin said that the human is from apes. I disagree althought my teacher said that.
I do not want to be equated with apes. And I also rethinking: Why there are still monkeys that are still alive?

[twthmoses]

When I studied at junior high school and learned about evolution theory as Charles Darwin said that the human is from apes. I disagree althought my teacher said that.
I do not want to be equated with apes. And I also rethinking: Why there are still monkeys that are still alive?

Why would there not be? Not all humans look the same, and they are still around. I mean you Got asian, african, European, etc. They dont look the same, so clearly humans evolved seperate in groups for some time and monkeys likewise-and seperate from humans

[Astargath]

You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above.

As usual. Now you try to twist things to make it look like I am the one who thinks that there is a missing link.

There isn't any evolution missing link. In zillions of fossils, we haven't been able to find one that we can prove. Lots of talk. Lots of ideas. But no proof.

So, missing-link ideas, along with the rest of the evolution ideas, are simply science fiction.

Or, show us the proof for even one evolution form. Your talk isn't proof. Point us at the proof that is accepted as proof by science, not just places where scientists and quasi-scientists say they have proof without showing it. Or explain it in enough detail that we can see that it is proof.

Can't do it, right?

Evolution is a hoax. And thanks for keeping this thread alive by your lack of proof, while you are willing to talk with no proof behind what you say. More and more people are starting to wake up about the evolution hoax, just because of you. Good job!

You keep asking for examples after I provided them:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#7ef7d9832d8d
https://study.com/academy/lesson/transitional-fossils-definition-examples.html
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03