Evolution is a hoax

[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!

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

Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant.

The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them.

Evolution is a hoax.

[1714720075]

1714720075

[1714720075]

1714720075

[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

Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant.

The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Certainly it isn't missing links'' Obviously not since there is no such thing as a missing link. https://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.html



That's 14 Hominid species, ranging from about 4 M.Y. ago to a modern human skull ("N").

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5138/fossils-of-intermediate-stages

And as you can see, evolution is in fact real.

[BADecker]

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

Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant.

The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Certainly it isn't missing links'' Obviously not since there is no such thing as a missing link. https://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.html

https://i.stack.imgur.com/zecLF.jpg

That's 14 Hominid species, ranging from about 4 M.Y. ago to a modern human skull ("N").

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5138/fossils-of-intermediate-stages

And as you can see, evolution is in fact real.

You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right?

Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this.

Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics.

Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that,  and fossils are the best we have.

The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[twthmoses]

Let's for a moment entertain that you are right, evolution is a hoax. If you apply the same analytical skills towards the bible, don't you arrived at the very same thing? Lots of if, if, if, stories and no proof? Why do the bible not require proof? Don't say faith, cause then you might as well take evolution on faith!

[Philopolymath]

Evolution is a BUSINESS model.... based on FRAUD and deception... not a science
By it's very definition...ABIOGENISIS abrogates the UNIVERSAL SINGULAR LAW OF SCIENCE
CAUSE & EFFECT

The ILLUSION.... of BIOLOGICAL LIFE..... is AN EFFECT....
The CAUSE of WHICH..
SCIENCE has yet to discover (because ACADEMIA has it's head soooo far up the ass of MONEY/POWER and it mouth on their COCK)

Mankind HAS had a true enlightened prophet decipher the mystery of CREATION
Mankind HAS been given the keys to TRANSMUTATION of THE ELEMENTS.
Mankind HAS been given a complete ACCURATE treatise on the COSMOGONY of the UNIVERSE

As written by the same man that CORRECTLY PRE-DICTED the TRANS-URANIUM ELEMENTS (and is thus the true father of the Atomic age)
MOREOVER ALSO gave us the MORE ACCURATE SPIRAL TABLE OF ELEMENTS

That Man's name is...

WALTER BOWMAN RUSSELL
His treatise was first published in 1927 in 'The Universal One'
His SCIENCE TREATISE WAS TESTED AND CONFIRMED AS ACCURATE AND IN ACCORD WITH NATURE...
BY HIS DEAR FRIEND...
NIKOLA TESLA

You now have the responsibility to investigate and DISPROVE it OR STFU
Or stay stupid and ignorant and a VICTIM of THE PROPAGANDA OF THE POWER ELITE

[Ava Duvall]

Let's for a moment entertain that you are right, evolution is a hoax. If you apply the same analytical skills towards the bible, don't you arrived at the very same thing? Lots of if, if, if, stories and no proof? Why do the bible not require proof? Don't say faith, cause then you might as well take evolution on faith!

Exactly. but science has facts which proves the existence of something. while the bible is all stories. but it is a if religion is excluded- it doesnt need to be proved.

[Astargath]

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

Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant.

The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Certainly it isn't missing links'' Obviously not since there is no such thing as a missing link. https://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.html

https://i.stack.imgur.com/zecLF.jpg

That's 14 Hominid species, ranging from about 4 M.Y. ago to a modern human skull ("N").

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5138/fossils-of-intermediate-stages

And as you can see, evolution is in fact real.

You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right?

Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this.

Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics.

Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that,  and fossils are the best we have.

The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax.

''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution.

[BADecker]

You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right?

Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this.

Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics.

Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that,  and fossils are the best we have.

The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax. - Son of a gun! I didn't even mean to get you. But since I did, thanks for making it easier on all of us - but mostly yourself - for finally understanding that evolution is a hoax.

''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution.

How many skulls did you have on that table?

You should really go out into the 7.5 billion people world, and find two people who are evolution-related. Pardon the offense to the people who lived in those skulls you show, way back, but those skulls don't show any proof of evolution by their existence. The dating is way unsure, and the fact that they are as many years apart as evolutionists claim that they are, shows that there is no way to prove evolution at all by them.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right?

Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this.

Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics.

Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that,  and fossils are the best we have.

The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax. - Son of a gun! I didn't even mean to get you. But since I did, thanks for making it easier on all of us - but mostly yourself - for finally understanding that evolution is a hoax.

''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution.

How many skulls did you have on that table?

You should really go out into the 7.5 billion people world, and find two people who are evolution-related. Pardon the offense to the people who lived in those skulls you show, way back, but those skulls don't show any proof of evolution by their existence. The dating is way unsure, and the fact that they are as many years apart as evolutionists claim that they are, shows that there is no way to prove evolution at all by them.

Evolution is a hoax.

So you think somehow a lot of human-like skulls existed in the past but all of them are extinct now or what do you think all those skulls are? Take a minute and think.

[BADecker]

You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right?

Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this.

Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics.

Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that,  and fossils are the best we have.

The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax. - Son of a gun! I didn't even mean to get you. But since I did, thanks for making it easier on all of us - but mostly yourself - for finally understanding that evolution is a hoax.

''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution.

How many skulls did you have on that table?

You should really go out into the 7.5 billion people world, and find two people who are evolution-related. Pardon the offense to the people who lived in those skulls you show, way back, but those skulls don't show any proof of evolution by their existence. The dating is way unsure, and the fact that they are as many years apart as evolutionists claim that they are, shows that there is no way to prove evolution at all by them.

Evolution is a hoax.

So you think somehow a lot of human-like skulls existed in the past but all of them are extinct now or what do you think all those skulls are? Take a minute and think.

I suppose past skulls are calcium, just like present skulls. How do you extinct a skull?

This is the evolution thread. If you can't explain what you mean by skulls made of calcium, or skulls being extinct, why don't you get back on topic - evolution.

What I mean is, let's imagine that 5 million years ago a man and a woman just appeared on the earth. Who cares where they came from. They were simply here. They had kids in like-begets-like fashion as we see everyday, and they lived and died just like they do today. Some of them lived to be 100-y-o. Others lived to only 30-y-o.

Now let's say that some of today's evolutionist dug up a handful of skulls here and there, and dated them with hundreds of thousands of years in between them. It would take an extreme amount of imagination to think that they might somehow be related, except in the fact that they were men and women. And that is without throwing evolution into the mix.

Evolutionists are mind-bogglingly imaginative to even think that they could make evolution relationships between a bunch of calcium objects, and then could think that it was proof of evolution.

Evolution is a complete hoax.

[BADecker]

Signature in the Cell and Intelligent Design


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/244136-2018-07-23-signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design.htm
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0723081033-origin-of-life.jpg

A question that never ceases to fascinate is that of how life originated, and how and why it has progressed as it seems to have. The official story and de rigueur explanation is that that life came about through spontaneous generation from seawater. Believing this is the mark of an Advanced Person, whether one has the slightest knowledge of the matter. In academia researchers have been fired and careers ruined for questioning it. If you doubt that scientists can be ideological herd animals, as petty, intolerant, vindictive, and backstabbing as professors, read Heretic, by the PhD biotechnologist and biochemist Matti Leisola, who fell on the wrong side of the herd. Ths establishment's continuing effort to stamp out heresy looks increasingly like a protracted desperatoon.

The other, more intuitive view of life is that of Intelligent Design. When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it. There is much evidence for this, certainly enough to intrigue those of open mind and intelligence. Those of a philosophic bent may note that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are equally relics of Nineteenth Century determinism, and that Darwin wrote when almost nothing was known about much of biology. Note also that the sciences are tightly constrained and limited by their premises, unable to think outside of their chosen box.  Others, wiser, wonder whether there are not more things in heaven and earth.

The theory of ID is seen by the official story as a form of biblical Creationism of the sort holding that the world was created in 4004 BC. This is either wantonly stupid or deliberately dishonest.  There is of course no necessary connection between ID and Buddhism, Islam, or the Cargo Cult. There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence. Some IDers are Christians, which does not affect the validity, or lack of it, orf what they say. To judge by my mail, many people have serious doubts about the official explanation without being zealots of anything in particular.

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn't know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don't know.

Two difficulties affect the presentation of ID to the public.  First, most of us have been subjected to thousands of hours of vapid "science" programs and mass-market textbooks. These tell us  that doubters must be snake-handling forest Christians with three teeth. The second is that following the argument requires more technical grasp than most have. Trying to explain the question to a network-news audience is hopeless and makes those attempting it seem foolish.

Read more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

[popcorn1]

Signature in the Cell and Intelligent Design


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/244136-2018-07-23-signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design.htm
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0723081033-origin-of-life.jpg

A question that never ceases to fascinate is that of how life originated, and how and why it has progressed as it seems to have. The official story and de rigueur explanation is that that life came about through spontaneous generation from seawater. Believing this is the mark of an Advanced Person, whether one has the slightest knowledge of the matter. In academia researchers have been fired and careers ruined for questioning it. If you doubt that scientists can be ideological herd animals, as petty, intolerant, vindictive, and backstabbing as professors, read Heretic, by the PhD biotechnologist and biochemist Matti Leisola, who fell on the wrong side of the herd. Ths establishment's continuing effort to stamp out heresy looks increasingly like a protracted desperatoon.

The other, more intuitive view of life is that of Intelligent Design. When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it. There is much evidence for this, certainly enough to intrigue those of open mind and intelligence. Those of a philosophic bent may note that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are equally relics of Nineteenth Century determinism, and that Darwin wrote when almost nothing was known about much of biology. Note also that the sciences are tightly constrained and limited by their premises, unable to think outside of their chosen box.  Others, wiser, wonder whether there are not more things in heaven and earth.

The theory of ID is seen by the official story as a form of biblical Creationism of the sort holding that the world was created in 4004 BC. This is either wantonly stupid or deliberately dishonest.  There is of course no necessary connection between ID and Buddhism, Islam, or the Cargo Cult. There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence. Some IDers are Christians, which does not affect the validity, or lack of it, orf what they say. To judge by my mail, many people have serious doubts about the official explanation without being zealots of anything in particular.

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn't know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don't know.

Two difficulties affect the presentation of ID to the public.  First, most of us have been subjected to thousands of hours of vapid "science" programs and mass-market textbooks. These tell us  that doubters must be snake-handling forest Christians with three teeth. The second is that following the argument requires more technical grasp than most have. Trying to explain the question to a network-news audience is hopeless and makes those attempting it seem foolish.

Read more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

Your a hoax.

[BADecker]

Signature in the Cell and Intelligent Design


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/244136-2018-07-23-signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design.htm
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0723081033-origin-of-life.jpg

A question that never ceases to fascinate is that of how life originated, and how and why it has progressed as it seems to have. The official story and de rigueur explanation is that that life came about through spontaneous generation from seawater. Believing this is the mark of an Advanced Person, whether one has the slightest knowledge of the matter. In academia researchers have been fired and careers ruined for questioning it. If you doubt that scientists can be ideological herd animals, as petty, intolerant, vindictive, and backstabbing as professors, read Heretic, by the PhD biotechnologist and biochemist Matti Leisola, who fell on the wrong side of the herd. Ths establishment's continuing effort to stamp out heresy looks increasingly like a protracted desperatoon.

The other, more intuitive view of life is that of Intelligent Design. When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it. There is much evidence for this, certainly enough to intrigue those of open mind and intelligence. Those of a philosophic bent may note that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are equally relics of Nineteenth Century determinism, and that Darwin wrote when almost nothing was known about much of biology. Note also that the sciences are tightly constrained and limited by their premises, unable to think outside of their chosen box.  Others, wiser, wonder whether there are not more things in heaven and earth.

The theory of ID is seen by the official story as a form of biblical Creationism of the sort holding that the world was created in 4004 BC. This is either wantonly stupid or deliberately dishonest.  There is of course no necessary connection between ID and Buddhism, Islam, or the Cargo Cult. There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence. Some IDers are Christians, which does not affect the validity, or lack of it, orf what they say. To judge by my mail, many people have serious doubts about the official explanation without being zealots of anything in particular.

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn't know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don't know.

Two difficulties affect the presentation of ID to the public.  First, most of us have been subjected to thousands of hours of vapid "science" programs and mass-market textbooks. These tell us  that doubters must be snake-handling forest Christians with three teeth. The second is that following the argument requires more technical grasp than most have. Trying to explain the question to a network-news audience is hopeless and makes those attempting it seem foolish.

Read more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

Your a hoax.

Yes, but, forum rules say we are not to start topics that are specifically for defaming people. So, staying on topic...

Evolution is a hoax, and the info in my previous post (along with other stuff) proves it.

[popcorn1]

Yes, but, forum rules say we are not to start topics that are specifically for defaming people. So, staying on topic...

Evolution is a hoax, and the info in my previous post (along with other stuff) proves it.

Oh so it was you that snitched on me ..I suppose you told Jesus too    you little snitch  ..
But it's ok for everyone to defame Mr Trumps ?..

I think the word socialism upset them the most not the defaming . and then you snitched to Mr moderator    the hitler dude who hates freedom of speech ..
Any Badecker trying to get some tezos if I get some I will give you some for being a cabbage ..No I love you really  ..

I bet you told off everyone to the teacher  ..Miss miss he just done this and that  ..

Back on topic in case Mr moderator moderates me   I must be the most deleted person on here  ..
I will evolve blockchain and smart contracts into something good ..

What can you evolve in the blockchain space that someday we can use in everyday life Badecker ?  ..
Do you have any ideas   and please don't say god  ..

The EVOLUTION OF BLOCKCHAINS and SMART CONTRACTS ..

[twthmoses]

Why would they not be able to make connections between calcium objects?
Say in a 100000 years We dig up a cellphone anno 1990 and a smartphone anno 2018, not knowing anything about phones, Why would We ever Think they are related? Dont look anything alike, Can barely communitcate, have very few simarly funktions. What on Earth would make us Think they are related? Just metal, plastic and wires in Common. But the fact is they are related. Its called evolution.
Its not one thing, in the case calcium that makes the proof, Its all the small dots, function, shape, size, materiale, etc. And Its called evolution.

[BADecker]

The EVOLUTION OF BLOCKCHAINS and SMART CONTRACTS ..

Why would they not be able to make connections between calcium objects?
Say in a 100000 years We dig up a cellphone anno 1990 and a smartphone anno 2018, not knowing anything about phones, Why would We ever Think they are related? Dont look anything alike, Can barely communitcate, have very few simarly funktions. What on Earth would make us Think they are related? Just metal, plastic and wires in Common. But the fact is they are related. Its called evolution.
Its not one thing, in the case calcium that makes the proof, Its all the small dots, function, shape, size, materiale, etc. And Its called evolution.

Neither of you is talking evolution theory evolution (ETE), which is the kind of evolution shown in the OP. Rather, you both are using semantics - playing with the language. This shows that evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Consider one of the basics regarding missing link determinations in ETE. The amount of mutation change has to be so small between evolution stages, that you would not be able to tell the difference between directly before and directly after evolved creatures without DNA measurements.

Why does the mutation change have to be this small? Because if it weren't, we would be able to find evolution changes going on right now (if they existed), among all kinds of species all over the place. Yet we haven't found even one that we can prove. That's why ETE promoters theorize that the mutations have to be this tiny. It gives them a chance to suggest that evolution exists, even though they can't prove even one instance.

The whole idea of using skulls dated multiple thousands of years apart, gives ETE a chance. But it most definitely doesn't factually show or prove even one instance of ETE.

Read the article at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/ to understand why evolution is extremely doubtful. Since it is extremely doubtful, promoting evolution as fact turns evolution into a hoax being perpetrated by jokers who know it is not factual, and who know it is extremely doubtful, but talk it up as being factual, anyway.

Evolution is a hoax.

[I Like Bitcoin]

Everything develops from simple to complex. However, our brain has huge potential, which we use at 5-7%. The theory of evolution can not explain this.

[BADecker]

Nothing develops from simple to complex without programming.

The programmer is more complex than the complex thing he programmed, just to be able to program it.

If a programmer programs something or things to be simple, and then to develop into something complex from that simplicity, he is a very complex programmer.

Entropy, which penetrates everything all around us, is really the conversion of complexity to ever more simplicity.

Cause and effect in everything shows that everything is programmed.

Nothing develops from simple to complex without programming.

Evolution doesn't happen without a programmer making it to happen. Since there is not even one factual evolution happenstance having ever been found, but countless numbers of like-begets-like happening, why do people promote something like evolution? After all, without factual happenstance of it, even one time, how does anyone know it is happening?

Evolution is a hoax.

[Gerald_Albright]

Have you not noticed that there are so many different kinds of monkeys? It's completely possible that one kind of monkey evolved to be humans and all the others evolved in different ways. There are so any different species in the world and they are all evolving in different ways. I don't know that much about evolution, but I've had it explained to me before. In a way, you can just say that we are one of the types of monkeys. We have just evolved to have bigger brains and walk upright. I'd say we got pretty lucky to come out this way.

[BADecker]

The fact that nobody has one scientifically factual, proven example of evolution, proves that we don't know that evolution is even possible. Monkeys, just like any other animals, have offspring of the same kind that the parents were, except if you breed them, just like you might breed other kinds of animals.

None of that is evolution in the form of evolution theory evolution. Without even one factual proof, why do people even think that evolution might exist?

Evolution is a hoax.