Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

Don't bother with this idiot... he doesn't even understand HOW to prove a scientific theory incorrect

The only way to prove a scientific theory incorrect, is to provide a BETTER theory... that's literally the ONLY way

The new theory must explain all the observed facts of the previous theory, and more... The new theory must provide valid reasoning and testable, falsifiable, hypothesis... you must provide valid science and experimentation which clearly demonstrates to someone knowledgeable on the subject that your new theory fits all the data, and provides better predictions of future events than the previous theory... this is the only way to disprove a theory... you cannot simply claim "Evolution = proven to not be possible in any way we can theorize", without actually providing a better theory to explain the OBSERVED FACTS of evolution, lmfao

This is no different than saying, "The Theory of Gravity is wrong" without providing a better explanation for the OBSERVED FACTS of gravity, i.e. why things are attracted to massive objects, orbits of planets, etc... to disprove a theory, you need to provide a BETTER theory... (technically you provide a hypothesis... it only becomes a theory once it stands up to decades/centuries of peer review, prediction and scientific experimentation)

Poor little Moloch. He can't even tell the difference between something of substance, and the theory about the hows and whys of that thing of substance. He uses the Theory of Gravity as an example. He can't even tell the difference between gravity, and the Theory of Gravity which explains how and why gravity acts as it does, and where it comes from.

Gravity is a fact! How do we know? We know because people and cars don't float off the surface of the earth. We know because the earth doesn't explode due to its centrifugal force. We know because somebody who jumps off a cliff falls to his death on the rocks below. We know because gravity causes your car keys to land on the table when you toss them there. Gravity is completely a fact, no matter what it is made out of.

The Theory of Gravity is different. How is it different? The Theory of Gravity is an attempt to explain where gravity comes from, why it works the way it does, and maybe even how to influence it to cause changes in it. The Theory takes the gravity fact, and tries to explain why gravity works as it does. The Theory of Gravity doesn't dispute the fact that gravity exists. It simply attempts to explain a bunch of things about gravity that aren't readily apparent.

How does this translate to evolution. Like this. There is the Theory of Evolution. But nobody has found any evolution example that is for-a-fact evolution.

Like the Theory of Gravity attempts to explain things about gravity, so the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain things about evolution. The big difference is that gravity abounds all over the place, and is observed and used trillions of times by billions of people and animals. Evolution is not known to factually to exist at all. The Theory of Gravity changes as we scientifically find out more and more about the gravity that we use every day. The Theory of Evolution changes as we find out more and more that evolution doesn't exist.

The Theory of Gravity can go on and on, because gravity is a known thing... known and used by everybody. The Theory of Evolution should be put to rest, because there isn't any evolution that anybody has found, and all usages of it are only guesses about its existence. The thinkers in science know this and state it. Yet evolution keeps on being promoted as fact - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg43768381#msg43768381.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Gravity is a fact! How do we know? We know because people and cars don't float off the surface of the earth.'' Silly boy, we know evolution is a fact, we know animals and humans evolve, they don't just pop off into existence

[1713481357]

1713481357

[1713481357]

1713481357

[1713481357]

1713481357

[1713481357]

1713481357

[1713481357]

1713481357

[1713481357]

1713481357

[BADecker]

''Gravity is a fact! How do we know? We know because people and cars don't float off the surface of the earth.'' Silly boy, we know evolution is a fact, we know animals and humans evolve, they don't just pop off into existence

We know gravity is a fact because we all use it all the time. Now, please don't jump off the top of the Empire State Building just to show that gravity might not exist. LISTEN to me for once, and don't do it.

Evolution theory evolution has not been proven to exist, even once. Yet, scientific attempts have been made for almost 200 years or longer.

[Astargath]

''Gravity is a fact! How do we know? We know because people and cars don't float off the surface of the earth.'' Silly boy, we know evolution is a fact, we know animals and humans evolve, they don't just pop off into existence

We know gravity is a fact because we all use it all the time. Now, please don't jump off the top of the Empire State Building just to show that gravity might not exist. LISTEN to me for once, and don't do it.

Evolution theory evolution has not been proven to exist, even once. Yet, scientific attempts have been made for almost 200 years or longer.

It wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't proven, for 200 years the evidence has been piling up, more and more evidence against creationism, more and more evidence showing evolution, yet somehow your brain thinks creationism beats evolution.

[Moloch]

Re BADLogic:

There is a difference between facts and theories...

A theory is an explanation for the observed facts... in the case of evolution, the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of evolution

A few examples of facts of evolution are:

The change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population
The sequence of flora and fauna found in specific layers of earth (ex. all dinosaurs are below the K-T boundary, while all humans are above the K-T boundary)
Changes in DNA sequencing aligns exactly with changes to observable characteristics of a species
Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
Embryology is another observed fact... a picture is worth 1000 words:


The theory of evolution explains these facts, and the process which enacts these changes.

It's sad that after "debating" evolution for years you still do not understand this simple concept (more like denying evolution than debating it... to debate you need facts and evidence)

Question: If God created this system... why are 99% of all species extinct?  Did God screw up over and over, and have to kill everything with a flood and start over multiple times?  Is God that bad of a designer?

Answer: The fact that 99% of all animal species are extinct disproves "intelligent design"

[BADecker]

Re BADLogic:

There is a difference between facts and theories...

A theory is an explanation for the observed facts... in the case of evolution, the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of evolution

A few examples of facts of evolution are:

The change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population
The sequence of flora and fauna found in specific layers of earth (ex. all dinosaurs are below the K-T boundary, while all humans are above the K-T boundary)
Changes in DNA sequencing aligns exactly with changes to observable characteristics of a species
Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
Embryology is another observed fact... a picture is worth 1000 words:


The theory of evolution explains these facts, and the process which enacts these changes.

It's sad that after "debating" evolution for years you still do not understand this simple concept (more like denying evolution than debating it... to debate you need facts and evidence)

Question: If God created this system... why are 99% of all species extinct?  Did God screw up over and over, and have to kill everything with a flood and start over multiple times?  Is God that bad of a designer?

Answer: The fact that 99% of all animal species are extinct disproves "intelligent design"

Species that God created are extinct, because people like you want a system without God. But since this can't happen, all that is happening is that you and others have destroyed the various species that have been destroyed... even though you don't realize that you are doing it, or how. It is a completely spiritual thing.

God created you with free will. Since God won't accept someone who doesn't want the truth (you), yet since He is kind and loving, He gives you time to change your mind. But you will be destroyed if you don't come to Him and apologize.

A theory explains facts. The facts that the Theory of Evolution tries to explain are not evolution facts. Rather, they are facts of adaptation and like-begets-like. Evolution theory is a completely wrong theory about these facts. Since we haven't found any factual proof of even one example of evolution, the Theory explains something that we don't know exists. Debating evolution is fun. It's like an Internet game where people fight over nothing. It's science fiction.

Since adaptation and like-begets-like has billions or trillions of factually proven examples in nature, and evolution has not even one...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Foxpup]

Species that God created are extinct, because people like you want a system without God. But since this can't happen, all that is happening is that you and others have destroyed the various species that have been destroyed... even though you don't realize that you are doing it, or how. It is a completely spiritual thing.

Although the requisite time-travelling abilities are obviously not beyond an omnipotent god, I think you'll find that the notion that "every time you masturbate, God kills a dinosaur" is on very flimsy theological ground and is not widely accepted by mainstream Christian denominations.

[Nolimitz84]

The theory of evolution was invented for people.In fact, the set of chromosomes and body parts of a person more like a pig.We have nothing to do with the monkeys.

[FroggysDoggy]

Evolution is NOT a hoax! It is a THEORY, or a HYPOTHESIS, if you like, and it used to satisfy people's needs. However, with time, as new knowledge develops, the THEORY is becoming increasingly ironic and, thus, needs adjustments. 

[BADecker]

Evolution is NOT a hoax! It is a THEORY, or a HYPOTHESIS, if you like, and it used to satisfy people's needs. However, with time, as new knowledge develops, the THEORY is becoming increasingly ironic and, thus, needs adjustments. 

Evolution is not a theory. Why not? Because the theory about evolution has been disproven many times over. The theory as taught in the schools neglects to take into effect most of the evolution things that have been disproven.

Since there is no evolution, there is no Theory of Evolution. All there is, is people saying that evolution theory exists.

For example. Imagine that an astronomer was looking through a telescope some 12 billion light years out. He sees something out there, and he gets a bunch of his colleagues and friends to look through his 'scope. They see it, as well. So, the form a scientific theory about what it is.

Then other astronomers develop better telescopes and start to look for the object that supposedly is 12 billion light years out there. They look for years, and nobody finds it. Finally somebody examines the telescope used by the first astronomer (who is long dead) and finds a scratch on the lens.

Evolution is a bit like that. As far as the science of Darwin's day, evolution could be an absolutely real thing. But as far as scientific advances made since Darwin, evolution is impossible. The universe, and especially life, is way too advanced design-wise for something like like evolution theory evolution to be real.

Evolution theory is not really theory, because evolution has been proven impossible. The thing that keeps the evolution idea being referred to as theory is, some people want it to be referred to as theory... to save face, or to continue to make money off it.

Evolution is a hoax.

[twthmoses]

Evolution is NOT a hoax! It is a THEORY, or a HYPOTHESIS, if you like, and it used to satisfy people's needs. However, with time, as new knowledge develops, the THEORY is becoming increasingly ironic and, thus, needs adjustments. 

Evolution is not a theory. Why not? Because the theory about evolution has been disproven many times over. The theory as taught in the schools neglects to take into effect most of the evolution things that have been disproven.

Since there is no evolution, there is no Theory of Evolution. All there is, is people saying that evolution theory exists.

For example. Imagine that an astronomer was looking through a telescope some 12 billion light years out. He sees something out there, and he gets a bunch of his colleagues and friends to look through his 'scope. They see it, as well. So, the form a scientific theory about what it is.

Then other astronomers develop better telescopes and start to look for the object that supposedly is 12 billion light years out there. They look for years, and nobody finds it. Finally somebody examines the telescope used by the first astronomer (who is long dead) and finds a scratch on the lens.

Evolution is a bit like that. As far as the science of Darwin's day, evolution could be an absolutely real thing. But as far as scientific advances made since Darwin, evolution is impossible. The universe, and especially life, is way too advanced design-wise for something like like evolution theory evolution to be real.

Evolution theory is not really theory, because evolution has been proven impossible. The thing that keeps the evolution idea being referred to as theory is, some people want it to be referred to as theory... to save face, or to continue to make money off it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Heh, you just keep saying that no factual proof of evolution has ever been found, but at the same time saying that most evolution things have been disproven. So you are disproving things that according to you do not exist in the first place…

Of course it’s all balb blab. Evolution is all around you, trillions of examples. That you choose not to see them, does not mean they are not there.

Adaptation is a learned trait, by an individual or group (even over a long time). That can or cannot be passed onto future individuals, thereby end up (but not necessarily) as evolution. Evolution per say is not a learned trait, but a born trait, a trait you will have a hard time (or not at all) to unlearn. Example height, dark hair, blue eyes, intelligent and cognitive skills etc. And if you thought the two last ones is something you learn as you see fit, you thought wrong, cause ones way of thinking is already there from the beginning. You can get better though, by training.

[Astargath]

Evolution is NOT a hoax! It is a THEORY, or a HYPOTHESIS, if you like, and it used to satisfy people's needs. However, with time, as new knowledge develops, the THEORY is becoming increasingly ironic and, thus, needs adjustments. 

Evolution is not a theory. Why not? Because the theory about evolution has been disproven many times over. The theory as taught in the schools neglects to take into effect most of the evolution things that have been disproven.

Since there is no evolution, there is no Theory of Evolution. All there is, is people saying that evolution theory exists.

For example. Imagine that an astronomer was looking through a telescope some 12 billion light years out. He sees something out there, and he gets a bunch of his colleagues and friends to look through his 'scope. They see it, as well. So, the form a scientific theory about what it is.

Then other astronomers develop better telescopes and start to look for the object that supposedly is 12 billion light years out there. They look for years, and nobody finds it. Finally somebody examines the telescope used by the first astronomer (who is long dead) and finds a scratch on the lens.

Evolution is a bit like that. As far as the science of Darwin's day, evolution could be an absolutely real thing. But as far as scientific advances made since Darwin, evolution is impossible. The universe, and especially life, is way too advanced design-wise for something like like evolution theory evolution to be real.

Evolution theory is not really theory, because evolution has been proven impossible. The thing that keeps the evolution idea being referred to as theory is, some people want it to be referred to as theory... to save face, or to continue to make money off it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Heh, you just keep saying that no factual proof of evolution has ever been found, but at the same time saying that most evolution things have been disproven. So you are disproving things that according to you do not exist in the first place…

Of course it’s all balb blab. Evolution is all around you, trillions of examples. That you choose not to see them, does not mean they are not there.

Adaptation is a learned trait, by an individual or group (even over a long time). That can or cannot be passed onto future individuals, thereby end up (but not necessarily) as evolution. Evolution per say is not a learned trait, but a born trait, a trait you will have a hard time (or not at all) to unlearn. Example height, dark hair, blue eyes, intelligent and cognitive skills etc. And if you thought the two last ones is something you learn as you see fit, you thought wrong, cause ones way of thinking is already there from the beginning. You can get better though, by training.

He basically keeps yelling ADAPTION!!! for every single example of evolution without realizing that, as you said, some traits/genes are not learned, they are genetically embedded in you. He is just a delusional person.

[Jarvis Edge]

It is interesting to see so many opinions of people that never red actually Darwin's work or any other scientific work supporting the theory. Make informed opinions, read, evaluate, my critical to everything before jumping into conclusions.

[BADecker]

Heh, you just keep saying that no factual proof of evolution has ever been found, but at the same time saying that most evolution things have been disproven. So you are disproving things that according to you do not exist in the first place…

Of course it’s all balb blab. Evolution is all around you, trillions of examples. That you choose not to see them, does not mean they are not there.

Adaptation is a learned trait, by an individual or group (even over a long time). That can or cannot be passed onto future individuals, thereby end up (but not necessarily) as evolution. Evolution per say is not a learned trait, but a born trait, a trait you will have a hard time (or not at all) to unlearn. Example height, dark hair, blue eyes, intelligent and cognitive skills etc. And if you thought the two last ones is something you learn as you see fit, you thought wrong, cause ones way of thinking is already there from the beginning. You can get better though, by training.

We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.

This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.

Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.

What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.

ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

He basically keeps yelling ADAPTION!!! for every single example of evolution without realizing that, as you said, some traits/genes are not learned, they are genetically embedded in you. He is just a delusional person.

You distract from the topic of evolution - in this case, evolution theory evolution. There is no factual example of species to species change. What is left is adaptation change. However, all change is dictated by cause and effect, just like the motions of the balls on a pool table are dictated by the way the pool player takes his shot... all through cause and effect. There is no example of anything else.

[BADecker]

It is interesting to see so many opinions of people that never red actually Darwin's work or any other scientific work supporting the theory. Make informed opinions, read, evaluate, my critical to everything before jumping into conclusions.

Most of Darwin's writings regarding evolution show that he was not very sure of himself. He was simply pointing out another path that looked viable at the time. Since then science has proven him wrong in may ways.

The most interesting point about all Darwin evolution is that Darwin, himself, doesn't clearly take on the immense problem that cause and effect - as shown to exist by Newton's 3rd Law - makes for his idea of survival of the fittest. Of course, they didn't use the word "programming" back then... at least not as frequently as we do today. But that is essentially what C&E is. Programming leaves no room for selection in the sense of natural selection. Intelligent design is all that is shown by all-pervading C&E.

In other words, Darwinian evolution was a total misnomer and miscalculation right from the start. It was science fiction right from the start. And all kinds of weak thinkers from the time of Darwin right down to the present have been overcome, mentally, by the dazzle of the Darwinian science fiction of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

He basically keeps yelling ADAPTION!!! for every single example of evolution without realizing that, as you said, some traits/genes are not learned, they are genetically embedded in you. He is just a delusional person.

You distract from the topic of evolution - in this case, evolution theory evolution. There is no factual example of species to species change. What is left is adaptation change. However, all change is dictated by cause and effect, just like the motions of the balls on a pool table are dictated by the way the pool player takes his shot... all through cause and effect. There is no example of anything else.

So how do you think there are so many species? They just keep popping into existence? Do you even logic bro?

[FroggysDoggy]

It is interesting to see so many opinions of people that never red actually Darwin's work or any other scientific work supporting the theory. Make informed opinions, read, evaluate, my critical to everything before jumping into conclusions.

Most of Darwin's writings regarding evolution show that he was not very sure of himself. He was simply pointing out another path that looked viable at the time. Since then science has proven him wrong in may ways.

The most interesting point about all Darwin evolution is that Darwin, himself, doesn't clearly take on the immense problem that cause and effect - as shown to exist by Newton's 3rd Law - makes for his idea of survival of the fittest. Of course, they didn't use the word "programming" back then... at least not as frequently as we do today. But that is essentially what C&E is. Programming leaves no room for selection in the sense of natural selection. Intelligent design is all that is shown by all-pervading C&E.

In other words, Darwinian evolution was a total misnomer and miscalculation right from the start. It was science fiction right from the start. And all kinds of weak thinkers from the time of Darwin right down to the present have been overcome, mentally, by the dazzle of the Darwinian science fiction of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Dear BADecker,

I totally agree with you that the Evolution Theory proved to be wrong. I know that. Period.

First, when I read your comment I was surprised, but then I got the idea: you love the word 'hoax.' Well, good for you!   I love this word, too, by the way.

HOWEVER, my point wasn't whether the Evolution Theory is a mistake or not. My point was that the word 'hoax' by no means matches the context. That's it.

I hate to disappoint you here, but if you claim to be so scientifically-minded, you must know the connotation of the word 'hoax,' don't you? It has a negative connotation.

hoax:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

/American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved./


Thus, a hoax implies an intention to deceive or trick and establishing or accepting something by fraudulent means.

Which of these applies to Charles Darwin and/or his theory? (deceive,trick)
Did Darwin intend to deceive or trick anybody by his theory?
Was his theory established or accepted by fraudulent means?
Where's the proof that Darwin intended to deceive or trick people by his theory?

Don't answer. These are rhetorical questions.

Let's go on.

Now, in the given context we can discuss either a 'theory' or a 'hypothesis' vs. a 'fact.' (Remember, "scientific hypotheses are not facts?")

First, a scientist puts forward / formulates a theory in order to explain some facts or phenomena either to prove them or find some better evidence to explain his or her observations.
Look up 'theory' and you'll see: "...An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Unlike situation with 'hoax,' implying an intention to deceive, the key word here is 'assumption.'
So, 'theory' doesn't mean 'fact' or 'truth,' it's just an assumption.
In the end, if a theory proves to be correct, it becomes a 'fact' or 'knowledge,' but should it be wrong, it'll remain a 'theory' and become history.
It can become anything, but a 'hoax,' unless a person behind it intended to deceive or trick people, of course, which is very unlikely

A bunch of definitions (just in case)

theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Some definitions of the 'fact'

fact:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.

a concept whose truth can be proved; Example: "scientific hypotheses are not facts."

Thanks for the discussion!

Nothing personal

[HODL_guy]

It was just the "evolution fork" if it will make you understand this phenomena. Of course they are monkeys because they have exactly monkeys DNA...

[BADecker]

Dear BADecker,

I totally agree with you that the Evolution Theory proved to be wrong. I know that. Period.

First, when I read your comment I was surprised, but then I got the idea: you love the word 'hoax.' Well, good for you!  I love this word, too, by the way.

HOWEVER, my point wasn't whether the Evolution Theory is a mistake or not. My point was that the word 'hoax' by no means matches the context. That's it.

I hate to disappoint you here, but if you claim to be so scientifically-minded, you must know the connotation of the word 'hoax,' don't you? It has a negative connotation.

hoax:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

/American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved./


Thus, a hoax implies an intention to deceive or trick and establishing or accepting something by fraudulent means.

Which of these applies to Charles Darwin and/or his theory? (deceive,trick)
Did Darwin intend to deceive or trick anybody by his theory?
Was his theory established or accepted by fraudulent means?
Where's the proof that Darwin intended to deceive or trick people by his theory?

Don't answer. These are rhetorical questions.

Let's go on.

Now, in the given context we can discuss either a 'theory' or a 'hypothesis' vs. a 'fact.' (Remember, "scientific hypotheses are not facts?")

First, a scientist puts forward / formulates a theory in order to explain some facts or phenomena either to prove them or find some better evidence to explain his or her observations.
Look up 'theory' and you'll see: "...An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Unlike situation with 'hoax,' implying an intention to deceive, the key word here is 'assumption.'
So, 'theory' doesn't mean 'fact' or 'truth,' it's just an assumption.
In the end, if a theory proves to be correct, it becomes a 'fact' or 'knowledge,' but should it be wrong, it'll remain a 'theory' and become history.
It can become anything, but a 'hoax,' unless a person behind it intended to deceive or trick people, of course, which is very unlikely

A bunch of definitions (just in case)

theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Some definitions of the 'fact'

fact:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.

a concept whose truth can be proved; Example: "scientific hypotheses are not facts."

Thanks for the discussion!

Nothing personal

All these definitions are nice. And Darwin might really have been hopeful that his ideas were true. But, we are far away from the time of Darwin. We are far advanced scientifically over what Darwin's world was. And so far, everything is as you say. But watch these two videos that show that today evolution has nothing to back it at all - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsHkfWr5TEo and especially https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

As I said in a previous post, since evolution is being touted as truth by universities and other people of science, even though at the very least it is highly suspect it to not exist - since we have never found an evolution proof example/sample - why should it not be touted as it is?... highly suspect, and not known to exist by factual example?

This is why evolution is a hoax - the continual expressing that it exists when nobody knows that it exists... not because people have faith in it. What we need is some little eensy-teensy-weensy evolution fact... at least.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BossRoss89]

Dear BADecker,

I totally agree with you that the Evolution Theory proved to be wrong. I know that. Period.

First, when I read your comment I was surprised, but then I got the idea: you love the word 'hoax.' Well, good for you!  I love this word, too, by the way.

HOWEVER, my point wasn't whether the Evolution Theory is a mistake or not. My point was that the word 'hoax' by no means matches the context. That's it.

I hate to disappoint you here, but if you claim to be so scientifically-minded, you must know the connotation of the word 'hoax,' don't you? It has a negative connotation.

hoax:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

/American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved./


Thus, a hoax implies an intention to deceive or trick and establishing or accepting something by fraudulent means.

Which of these applies to Charles Darwin and/or his theory? (deceive,trick)
Did Darwin intend to deceive or trick anybody by his theory?
Was his theory established or accepted by fraudulent means?
Where's the proof that Darwin intended to deceive or trick people by his theory?

Don't answer. These are rhetorical questions.

Let's go on.

Now, in the given context we can discuss either a 'theory' or a 'hypothesis' vs. a 'fact.' (Remember, "scientific hypotheses are not facts?")

First, a scientist puts forward / formulates a theory in order to explain some facts or phenomena either to prove them or find some better evidence to explain his or her observations.
Look up 'theory' and you'll see: "...An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Unlike situation with 'hoax,' implying an intention to deceive, the key word here is 'assumption.'
So, 'theory' doesn't mean 'fact' or 'truth,' it's just an assumption.
In the end, if a theory proves to be correct, it becomes a 'fact' or 'knowledge,' but should it be wrong, it'll remain a 'theory' and become history.
It can become anything, but a 'hoax,' unless a person behind it intended to deceive or trick people, of course, which is very unlikely

A bunch of definitions (just in case)

theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Some definitions of the 'fact'

fact:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.

a concept whose truth can be proved; Example: "scientific hypotheses are not facts."

Thanks for the discussion!

Nothing personal

All these definitions are nice. And Darwin might really have been hopeful that his ideas were true. But, we are far away from the time of Darwin. We are far advanced scientifically over what Darwin's world was. And so far, everything is as you say. But watch these two videos that show that today evolution has nothing to back it at all - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsHkfWr5TEo and especially https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

As I said in a previous post, since evolution is being touted as truth by universities and other people of science, even though at the very least it is highly suspect it to not exist - since we have never found an evolution proof example/sample - why should it not be touted as it is?... highly suspect, and not known to exist by factual example?

This is why evolution is a hoax - the continual expressing that it exists when nobody knows that it exists... not because people have faith in it. What we need is some little eensy-teensy-weensy evolution fact... at least.

Evolution is a hoax.

I believe you're both right here, guys. A hoax isn't the perfect word, of course, but today's "universities and other people of science" should change the way they interpret it. IMO, they should teach it as a part of a history of scientific thought or something