Evolution is a hoax

[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

[BADecker]

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

However, the idea of evolution being taught as reality, even though there is not one proven example of it, and even though there could be other ideas for the things of nature, is not unique. For example:

How often does anybody hear that 1 + 1 is not 2? We are all taught that it is a fact that 1 + 1 = 2, right? It is possibly only in studies of philosophy, or maybe some weird form of quantum mechanics, where thought on the idea of 1 + 1 not equaling 2 might ever be talked about? But I can easily show you that 1 + 1 does not = 2... that 1 + 1 always = 1 + 1.

Here it is: There are not two things in the universe that are completely the same. This means that we are talking about different items. Even if they are the same like two electrons might be exactly the same, yet they are different because they hold different places in space/time.

Practically speaking, for our everyday living, 1 + 1 = 2 might work very well, and might help us along in life. But the whole thing is a lie. And we live with a lie, throughout our lives, in our everyday transactions, in the most basic of math that we all use.

So, why wouldn't somebody try to foist the use of evolution ideas on us, even though we have never seen even one proven example of it? Why not, instead, explain that our entire math system is completely abstract, even though it seems to work? And then add the idea of evolution to this abstractness (and probably a whole lot of other things)?

But no. Rather than teaching the truth, clearly, our institutions of higher learning attempt to take us deeper into the lie that the abstract is truth and reality.

This thread is about the hoax of evolution. So, it might be difficult to show how many things that we think are solid reality, are in "truth" simply abstract ideas. But it might be just the thing for people in this forum. Why? Barely anyone recognizes that evolution is not known to be reality. You are one of the few who seems to be willing to admit it.

So, what about those others? You know, the ones who would rather go on their merry way, accept the negative probability about evolution, and not even admit that there is a chance that they are wrong about it, and all this in the face of not finding even one example of it for-a-fact? Why do they spread something that is proven to be impossible in other ways? Is it dream time for them? Seems to me that the whole thing is rooted in a lie, and people like it that way.

Evolution is a hoax.

[airbamboo]

I do not believe in the theory of evolution , Because the theory is not clear

[Norihiro]

If monkeys exist - it doesn't absolutely prove that evolution is a hoax, we have different ways in evolution that's why they are still monkeys.

[Moloch]

You know you are crazy when you rant on and on for 172 pages and nobody cares, lmfao

How is BADLogic any different from a street preacher standing on a soapbox in the park?

[twthmoses]

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.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

[Astargath]

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.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

He thinks animals randomly and spontaneously pop into existence then die and another species of animal pop into existence with features that would seem like evolution did it but nope. That's basically what he thinks.