Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution.

There are literally hundreds of examples listed for you in this thread do you really think its necessary for me to repeat it to you for the hundredth time?

It's like my old grand pappy used to say "you can lead a retard to the truth but you can't make him understand it!"

It's nothing personal I just think you're a moron, oh wait is that personal?

Those are not examples of evolution.

One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.

Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.

Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.

Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?

[1715341514]

1715341514

[1715341514]

1715341514

[Astargath]

I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution.

There are literally hundreds of examples listed for you in this thread do you really think its necessary for me to repeat it to you for the hundredth time?

It's like my old grand pappy used to say "you can lead a retard to the truth but you can't make him understand it!"

It's nothing personal I just think you're a moron, oh wait is that personal?

Those are not examples of evolution.

One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.

Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.

Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.

Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?

Why do you even keep replying? Is it to convince yourself that you are asking for proof and no one is giving it to you so you can tell yourself, yeah these guys don't have any evidence, evolution is truly a hoax. I can give you plenty of examples of beneficial mutations that are passed on through generations but then you will say the same things that you have been saying all the time, evolution fits better adaption (which is retarded) and mutations aren't random therefore evolution can't exist (which is not proven) 

[BADecker]

Those are not examples of evolution.

One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.

Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.

Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.

Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?

Why do you even keep replying? Is it to convince yourself that you are asking for proof and no one is giving it to you so you can tell yourself, yeah these guys don't have any evidence, evolution is truly a hoax. I can give you plenty of examples of beneficial mutations that are passed on through generations but then you will say the same things that you have been saying all the time, evolution fits better adaption (which is retarded) and mutations aren't random therefore evolution can't exist (which is not proven) 

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

[twthmoses]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

[Astargath]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

That's exactly the problem with these people. They are extremely skeptical about evolution, for example and yet accept other ridiculous claims so easily. He said numerous times that he knows the bible is real because ''eye witnesses'' rofl.

[BADecker]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.

The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.

There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.

The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.

[af_newbie]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.

blah, blah...ya-ba-da-ba-doo, and other flintstones shit..., blah, blah

They knew Zeus was angry every time there was lightning.  That is how much they knew of electricity.

[BADecker]

They knew Zeus was angry every time there was lightning.  That is how much they knew of electricity.

Wow! Just wow! I knew you guys were treating evolution as a religion, in a religious way. But I didn't really expect one of you to actually come out and express it!

Evolution is a hoax, and you just showed that you agree.

[verwas]

I really disagree with this theory, I am not also a considerate to any perspective of anybody...

[twthmoses]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.

The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.

There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.

The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.

We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up.

1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine.

2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans!

3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution.  We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species.

4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here!

5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that!

There you go, now answer mine!

Evolution is fact, there is no programming!

[Astargath]

So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.

Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?

If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?

Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.

What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?

Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.

Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?

When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.

The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.

There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.

The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.

We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up.

1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine.

2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans!

3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution.  We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species.

4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here!

5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that!

There you go, now answer mine!

Evolution is fact, there is no programming!

5) Also this argument is meaningless because it doesn't take in count time. Complexity can arise from very simple rules, if you also add millions and millions of years to that you get the complexity you see today without us being able to ''replicate it''. Scientists have developed countless cures for countless natural and unnatural diseases, scientists have developed planes,cars,rockets, what more do you really want to consider them ''smarter'' than nature?

[BADecker]

We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up. - Just remember where we are. We are in a thread that either shows evolution to be a hoax, or shows it to NOT be a hoax.

Talk, alone, doesn't do anything. It is the substance of the talk - the proof - that counts.

1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine. - Why do you think that such arms are useless? T-Rex, and others like him, needed tiny arms to sort through the things he had just torn apart with his big legs and tail and jaws. The idea that small legs were useless is simply the idea of people who didn't exist with T-Rex to see how things really were. To show you that this whole point is stupid, consider how useful the small arms of a kangaroo are.

Useless for proving or disproving evolution.

2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans! - Why do you think they are missing links? So far, there are other reason for these things. One of the best creation ideas for these is simply for variety. But there could be many others when you consider the fall into sin, and the Bible record of angels (aliens) on the earth, tampering with our DNA.

As it stands, useless for proving or disproving evolution.

3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution.  We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species. - The fossil record says you are wrong.

4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here! - Our proof of no random is the fact that all scientific operations can be performed with exactly the same results if done exactly the same way, every time. The problem with the word "random" in evolution is semantics.

The original word "random" was injected into early evolution theory at a time when scientists did not understand random very well. It was a time when a roll of the dice, or the toss of a coin, was considered to be random. We now understand that there are multitudes of forces that act on the dice and the coin... forces that determine exactly the way the dice or coin act... and none of it is really random.

Evolution theory simply has not upgraded its use of "random" to take into account these findings. This makes evolution theory vague at its best, because random is one of the most important "items" in determining ETE.

5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that! - Is nature smarter than our scientists? No! Nature is at least billions of times smarter than our scientists. All one need do is look at all the life in nature, along with its reproductive abilities.

What don't we have in "smart" nature? We don't have a source for the intelligence. This points to Intelligent Design, not intelligent nature, and certainly not evolution.

There you go, now answer mine!

Evolution is fact, there is no programming!

5) Also this argument is meaningless because it doesn't take in count time. Complexity can arise from very simple rules, if you also add millions and millions of years to that you get the complexity you see today without us being able to ''replicate it''. Scientists have developed countless cures for countless natural and unnatural diseases, scientists have developed planes,cars,rockets, what more do you really want to consider them ''smarter'' than nature?

Immune systems are designed to destroy differences. Even if we perceive a beneficial difference, immune systems are designed to destroy them whatever they are. The more the time, the greater chance that changes are destroyed by immune systems. Scientists are grasping at straws by trying to reverse the natural order when the say that long time gives better odds. The only better odds long time gives is better odds for immune systems to destroy changes. No evolution there.

Most of the stuff scientists have developed has an overall detrimental result for nature. So, even if the scientific developments could begin to approach nature's in complexity, they would be destructive, helping entropy, rather than building anything up into complexity.

If scientists weren't part of nature... if they were on the outside... their inventions might not affect gradual destruction on them as well as everyone/everything else. But because they are part of the nature that they are slowly destroying, they will be stopped by their own destructive inventions.

Nothing to do with proving evolution or not. No proof for evolution has been found. Evolution is still a hoax.


Find a natural change in the DNA over at least several thousand years, where critter A has this change, and critter B has the first change plus another, and critter C has both of these changes plus a third, but in every other way the critters are entirely the same. Do that, and you will have a tiny start towards evolution proof.

Then, amidst the countless C&E affects in nature, find even one pure random affect that is for sure a pure random affect. Add it to the DNA thing in the previous paragraph, and you will have a little bit more of a start towards proving evolution.

The thing that doesn't prove the existence of evolution is, thousands of words that shout that evolution is real. Proof is necessary.

Evolution is a hoax.

[kemswag]

Throughout my days school in school,  one  biology topic I have had problems with over the years is evolution, I find it very difficult to comprehend this concept by Charles Darwin because it does not look real.

[FortFC]

At least evolution explains more details of our origin rather that church or any other religious institutions

[BADecker]

At least evolution explains more details of our origin rather that church or any other religious institutions

And science fiction stories about the moon over the last hundred+ years, explain way more about the moon than the astronauts' visits.

[Moloch]

[BADecker]

You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof?  Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?

The two solutions with relation to this topic are:
1. Evolution is a hoax;
2. Evolution is not a hoax.
To remain on-topic, there is no other easy/simple solution. It has to be one of these.

Evolution has enough flaws in all of its theory, and scientists know about the flaws, and could think of more flaws if they put their minds to it, so that they know that evolution is impossible in any way that we understand, theoretically. The point isn't why scientists promote something that they know doesn't exist - evolution. The point is that they DO promote evolution, which doesn't exist... at least not in the evolution theory way.

If you promote as truth something that you know isn't true, or even if you promote as truth something that you know is doubtful, aren't you really making a hoax out of it? What else is there to say? Hoax!

If the thing you are questioning has to do with religion, or has to do with my personal religion, there are religious topics all over the Politics & Society and Off Topic, or you can PM me.

500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was.  Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true.

And this is the point. In what way? Essentially, the topic is not about knowing or not knowing. The topic is about hoax. What I mean is, if all the books about evolution said, "We think evolution might be true, but we do not know that evolution is true for a fact," evolution would not be a hoax. In fact, if all the books said, "We know that evolution is true," but everybody was innocently mistaken, even then evolution would not be a hoax.

The thing that makes evolution to be a hoax is that thousands of scientists and other people know that evolution might not be true... or they absolutely know that it isn't true. But what do many of these people do? They keep on saying, "Evolution is real, evolution is true." When they speak against what they know this way, they are promoting it in hoax fashion.

2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!

You seem to be asking about religious beliefs here. Evolution scientists are trying to find out scientific reasons why evolution is true. Are you finally agreeing that the scientists have been proven wrong, and that they know it, and that in their evolution hoaxing they are trying to make evolution into a religion for people? Are you really trying to say that you are starting to understand that evolution is a hoax, but that you don't want to believe that it is a hoax, so you are making evolution into a religion for yourself?

Evolution isn't about my religious beliefs. Evolution theory evolution is about scientific proof, which is about a method that can be proven true using physical laws... especially that it can be duplicated using the same physical criteria. Are you suggesting that evolution has been a religion all along?

Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.

If Manufacturing Company A made billions of cars in millions of models, and Manufacturing Company B couldn't even make one car, why would you believe anything that Manufacturing Company B said about how to make cars, especially if it contradicted Manufacturing Company A, and especially if there was all kinds of evidence, and even some proof, that Manufacturing Company B was wrong?

[BADecker]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/41502768_10156060035178253_7677661973298806784_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=db25bc91fb089426a64da87a9c89b558&oe=5C1BF818

A religious preacher says, "God did it!"

A scientist says, "Just shut up!"

Is that what you are trying to say? Don't tell people the truth that God did it?

You are way into religion. What are you doing in this thread? Scientists might get angry or frustrated at times. But they don't say, "Just shut up!" Rather, they go find what is real. Such is what science is all about.

[twthmoses]

Why are you defining the thread tropic? The thread started with Evolution is a hoax, on account of that there are monkeys around. When you invoke programming as a means of explaining away evolution, you automatic open the door for a “higher power”. Super intelligent aliens or some form of god, cause I don’t know how else to define a “higher power”, responsible for this programming, which you state is around.

A Hoax is to deliberately and knowing falsifying the truth. The waste majority of scientists believe in evolution. In order for evolution to qualify as a hoax, we must have a conspiracy of millions of people, spanning 100+ years. Best conspiracy ever!

If you yourself want to keep strict to thread tropic, you should stop all the programming stuff and explaining why evolution is not possible – and concentrate on, that the waste majority of scientists are in a global conspiracy, lasting well past 100 some years. By default statistic is on my side, it is not possible, there is no such conspiracy, even with a reasonable margin. So many people, over such a long time, cannot run a conspiracy of this magnitude and not get called out.


Thus end of tropic, Evolution cannot be a hoax.

[BADecker]

Why are you defining the thread tropic? The thread started with Evolution is a hoax, on account of that there are monkeys around. When you invoke programming as a means of explaining away evolution, you automatic open the door for a “higher power”. Super intelligent aliens or some form of god, cause I don’t know how else to define a “higher power”, responsible for this programming, which you state is around.

A Hoax is to deliberately and knowing falsifying the truth. The waste majority of scientists believe in evolution. In order for evolution to qualify as a hoax, we must have a conspiracy of millions of people, spanning 100+ years. Best conspiracy ever!

If you yourself want to keep strict to thread tropic, you should stop all the programming stuff and explaining why evolution is not possible – and concentrate on, that the waste majority of scientists are in a global conspiracy, lasting well past 100 some years. By default statistic is on my side, it is not possible, there is no such conspiracy, even with a reasonable margin. So many people, over such a long time, cannot run a conspiracy of this magnitude and not get called out.


Thus end of tropic, Evolution cannot be a hoax.

You seem to be the only one who has said anything about "tropic."

Evolution is a hoax, yes or no. Anybody can say a simple "yes" or "no." But simple yes or no isn't much of a discussion. In a forum we have discussion. That is why I bring in reasons to show that evolution is a hoax, and you attempt to bring in reasons to show why it isn't. Don't you even understand this about a forum, yet?

You have defined what a hoax is. Then you say that scientists believe. If a scientist believes something, isn't it true that he doesn't know? If he knew that evolution was real, he wouldn't have to believe that it was real. He would know that it is real.

Now, here is where the hoax part comes in. The scientists only believe. They don't know, and they know that they don't know. But they proclaim that evolution is real when they know it isn't. That is the hoax. The hoax is not knowing, but proclaiming that they know.

Since scientists don't know and yet hoax that they do, when the hoax is discovered, don't honest people start looking for the thing that is real? Then they see that the "higher power" idea fits the whole operation of nature far better than the evolution hoax. So, why suouldn't people start looking at the "higher power" idea?

The programming (C&E) stuff shows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) is not real. ETE doesn't talk about C&E in nature, but all we see is C&E in nature. Science knows that everything operates by C&E. But they don't seem to realize that there isn't any C&E in ETE. In other words, they don't want to recognize that ETE doesn't exist, as proven by C&E.

Are scientists that stupid? NO, of course not! They know that there isn't any C&E in ETE. They also know that the whole operation of nature works by C&E. So, they are hoaxing us when they say that ETE is real.

Evolution is a hoax.