Evolution is a hoax

[twthmoses]

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.

I’m not in agreement with that. Believing in something to be true, does not qualify as a hoax, whether it is actually true or not. We just don’t know better. Knowing something is not true, and then spreading that as the truth, qualifies as a hoax.

Whether your take on Evolution ultimate turns out be correct, or my version, shared by the majority of people, or none of us,-  none of us qualifies for preforming a hoax. We believe what we are propagating to actually be the truth.

Again C&E shows no such thing, if fact it shows the direct opposite, Evolution is a fact. C&E is a transition state, not the tool. It required identical input to produce identical outputs. Never ever in the history of the Universe has identical inputs been available in two situations, thus never ever has the output been identical. Pure Random from the beginning of the Universe till now. Evolution is a fact.

[BADecker]

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.

I’m not in agreement with that. Believing in something to be true, does not qualify as a hoax, whether it is actually true or not. We just don’t know better. Knowing something is not true, and then spreading that as the truth, qualifies as a hoax.

Whether your take on Evolution ultimate turns out be correct, or my version, shared by the majority of people, or none of us,-  none of us qualifies for preforming a hoax. We believe what we are propagating to actually be the truth.

Again C&E shows no such thing, if fact it shows the direct opposite, Evolution is a fact. C&E is a transition state, not the tool. It required identical input to produce identical outputs. Never ever in the history of the Universe has identical inputs been available in two situations, thus never ever has the output been identical. Pure Random from the beginning of the Universe till now. Evolution is a fact.

If you are not a person who has found that evolution is false, evolution may not be a hoax for you. But science is open for everyone. All the scientists who have studied evolution know that it doesn't exist in the form of current evolution theory. Some of these scientists push evolution as being true, even though they know it isn't, necessarily. That's the hoax.

If they said - as a few of them have - "We CAN'T tell for sure that evolution exists," then those scientists are not the hoaxers. It's the ones that state that evolution is true and real, when they know that it might not be... those are the hoaxers. They have turned evolution into a hoax.



For example, suppose that metal detectors can only detect underground gold accurately down to 8 feet below the surface. And a scientist using a metal detector, detects gold 10 feet down. Has he really detected gold down there? No! Metal detectors can only detect gold 8 feet down.

What does the scientist do regarding what he has detected? He might say, "I have detected gold 10 feet down." Or he might say, "I think that I have detected gold 10 feet down." If he says he HAS detected the gold, he is a liar. Why? Because metal detectors only detect 8 feet down. If he spreads the lie, he is hoaxing people.



Regarding evolution, nobody has ever found that it exists, factually. There is not one piece of evidence that fits evolution theory enough to factually say that it is evolution. Or show us one, and line up all the points of the theory and explain how each point fits. You can't. They don't all fit.

So far, everything that is called evolution is a guess, fits adaptation better, fits like-begets-like better, or can be shown to be completely false, or even fits the creation idea better. Most scientists know this. Most of them even state it when they say modifying words like "if, we think, maybe, it's possible," and a whole host of other words that show that they do not know. But when you look in the books, evolution is touted as truth. Somebody is a hoaxer.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

What evidence would change your mind?

Are you attempting to make this a personal thing?

The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.

[BADecker]

What evidence would change your mind?

Are you attempting to make this a personal thing?

The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.

Can you answer the question or not?

What scientific evidence would convince you that the evolution is true?  

I answered the question. Can you read or not? Or is the problem you thinking ability?

 

EDIT: Okay. Let me answer your question straight out. What scientific evidence would convince me that the evolution is true? The only scientific evidence that would convince me that evolution might be true, would be the same scientific evidence that proved that science was false.

And that is exactly what evolution theory does. It is scientific evidence that proves science is false. This means that I believe the theory exists, not evolution.

[BADecker]

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?

You really are having a bad day, aren't you? Out of friendship I answered your off topic question. And I answered it at least twice, in different ways. And you won't even acknowledge that I answered it.

Look, the whole evolution thing isn't about convincing me. However, as I said before, the evidence to convince me would have to be facts... you know, like, factual evidence. There aren't any evolution facts. So, I can't be convinced. How much plainer can anybody say it?

Since evolution is being touted as fact, when it is known by many people to not be factual...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

What evidence would change your mind?

Are you attempting to make this a personal thing?

The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.

Can you answer the question or not?

What scientific evidence would convince you that the evolution is true?  

I answered the question. Can you read or not? Or is the problem you thinking ability?

 

EDIT: Okay. Let me answer your question straight out. What scientific evidence would convince me that the evolution is true? The only scientific evidence that would convince me that evolution might be true, would be the same scientific evidence that proved that science was false.

And that is exactly what evolution theory does. It is scientific evidence that proves science is false. This means that I believe the theory exists, not evolution.

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?

He doesn't want to answer because last time when he said ''this would prove evolution to be real but we never found it'' and I gave him what he asked for, he then changed his statement to something else. He is scared to ask for something in particular because then his brain would have to work harder to ignore the evidence again. It's a classic badecker strategy.

[BADecker]

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?

He doesn't want to answer because last time when he said ''this would prove evolution to be real but we never found it'' and I gave him what he asked for, he then changed his statement to something else. He is scared to ask for something in particular because then his brain would have to work harder to ignore the evidence again. It's a classic badecker strategy.

LOL! All you do is talk. Why? Because the only thing that keeps evolution alive is blabber. There is nothing factual to scientific evolution, except talk. And it is the talk that is factual, not the evolution.

The reason why Darwin pushed the idea of the "tree," wasn't because he rally had any real evidence for it. It was because it couldn't be proven right or wrong with the science of his day. This way the evolution idea got a foot in the door so to speak.

Now that we are familiar with DNA, find a critter with a beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a second one that has a second beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a third critter that has an additional beneficial mutation along with the previous two. That would be the start of real proof for evolution.

Of course, somebody would have to decide if any of the mutations were really beneficial, or if the so-called, later benefits were really a form of immune system activity fighting against some detrimental mutation. And then somebody else would have to show that the first "somebody" was right... all arbitrary determination.

And none of that takes into account the much deeper question of cause and affect - which acts like programming - because that is exactly what DNA activity is... extremely complex programming. Btw, programming needs a programmer, or we would have had computers many thousands of years ago.


So, what do we have. A lot of talk that evolution exists with nothing to back it up. Why? Because none of the so-called evolution operations can be proven to be evolution. Rather, they fit other operations better. Science knows this. Darwin started the "tree" idea because he knew it. Evolution theory keeps an evolution toe in the door. But there isn't a hint of solid proof that evolution theory evolution can exist... to say nothing about that it does exist... to say nothing about that it is prevalent... to say nothing about that it is how things work in nature in general.


So, why do we have evolution at all? Different reason, all of which are designed to distract from the truth of creation. They include ego, money, and power, and a fight against God.

There is no proof for evolution. There is lots of proof that evolution isn't even possible. When people know this, yet promote evolution as true and real, they are promoting evolution in a hoax manner.

Evolution is a hoax.



NOTE: This is getting to be fun. You jokers keep on proving that there isn't any evolution. All I ave to do is play with the things you say, to show how you prove yourselves in need of going back to elementary school science class.

[Astargath]

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?

...

Now that we are familiar with DNA, find a critter with a beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a second one that has a second beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a third critter that has an additional beneficial mutation along with the previous two. That would be the start of real proof for evolution.

...

Are your sure you looked for it?

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-302
https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871816/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/beneficial-mutations-examples-effects.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/6801077

or just type beneficial mutations in google. ~20,400,000 pages on beneficial mutations.

Here it comes, the retarded explanation from badecker... wait for it...

He is just going to say that it's not enough to prove evolution just with that and so on.

[BADecker]

...

Now that we are familiar with DNA, find a critter with a beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a second one that has a second beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a third critter that has an additional beneficial mutation along with the previous two. That would be the start of real proof for evolution.

...

Are your sure you looked for it?

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-302
https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871816/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/beneficial-mutations-examples-effects.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/6801077

or just type beneficial mutations in google. ~20,400,000 pages on beneficial mutations.

I'm not into looking for DNA in critters. But nobody has time machine to go back and check DNA in critters thousands of years ago. And, even if they did, the idea of "beneficial" would be a judgment call. No evolution proof there.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BLAST2MARS]

That is true. Because if there is then we still witness those evolutions in these modern times but we don't. We only see abnormalities from animals and they don't really turn to a complete new form of creature.

[robbietobby]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

Lets assume that fact that we descended from monkeys are true. Why there are still monkeys around you ask. Well first of all, i guess that not all monkeys would be able to evolve. Some of them would stay monkeys, and that explain your question. And it would take a lot of time for evolution, from one specie to another.

 In the inland sea in Japan, there were crabs who had curious markings on their backs that resemble a samurai's face. All the fisherman in the area thought these were sacred and when caught them, they throw them back in the sea. As time went on, they soon discovered that all there was an over population of these crabs and all other crabs became scarce. If you were a crab with these markings, you had a much better chance of survival. It's called artificial selection. This occurs all the time in nature. The strong survive. The weak die off. Evolution is not a theory it's a fact!

[Astargath]

...

Now that we are familiar with DNA, find a critter with a beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a second one that has a second beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a third critter that has an additional beneficial mutation along with the previous two. That would be the start of real proof for evolution.

...

Are your sure you looked for it?

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-302
https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871816/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/beneficial-mutations-examples-effects.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/6801077

or just type beneficial mutations in google. ~20,400,000 pages on beneficial mutations.

I'm not into looking for DNA in critters. But nobody has time machine to go back and check DNA in critters thousands of years ago. And, even if they did, the idea of "beneficial" would be a judgment call. No evolution proof there.

Evolution is a hoax.

see hahaha, what did I say? You said ''That would be the start of real proof for evolution.'' Now you are changing it to, we don't know if it's beneficial because that would be a judgment call, LUL. Unable to accept reality.

[BADecker]

I'm not into looking for DNA in critters. But nobody has time machine to go back and check DNA in critters thousands of years ago. And, even if they did, the idea of "beneficial" would be a judgment call. No evolution proof there.

Evolution is a hoax.

see hahaha, what did I say? You said ''That would be the start of real proof for evolution.'' Now you are changing it to, we don't know if it's beneficial because that would be a judgment call, LUL. Unable to accept reality.

You are so funny. So, you made a start for evolution. How much of a start? Probably less than a billionth of a percent... way too small to measure.

Now get out that time machine and go back there and do some real DNA measurements.

[Astargath]

I'm not into looking for DNA in critters. But nobody has time machine to go back and check DNA in critters thousands of years ago. And, even if they did, the idea of "beneficial" would be a judgment call. No evolution proof there.

Evolution is a hoax.

see hahaha, what did I say? You said ''That would be the start of real proof for evolution.'' Now you are changing it to, we don't know if it's beneficial because that would be a judgment call, LUL. Unable to accept reality.

You are so funny. So, you made a start for evolution. How much of a start? Probably less than a billionth of a percent... way too small to measure.

Now get out that time machine and go back there and do some real DNA measurements.

Well, you keep asking for evidence, we keep giving it to you, then you simply change it to something else, pretty funny.

[BADecker]

I'm not into looking for DNA in critters. But nobody has time machine to go back and check DNA in critters thousands of years ago. And, even if they did, the idea of "beneficial" would be a judgment call. No evolution proof there.

Evolution is a hoax.

see hahaha, what did I say? You said ''That would be the start of real proof for evolution.'' Now you are changing it to, we don't know if it's beneficial because that would be a judgment call, LUL. Unable to accept reality.

You are so funny. So, you made a start for evolution. How much of a start? Probably less than a billionth of a percent... way too small to measure.

Now get out that time machine and go back there and do some real DNA measurements.

Well, you keep asking for evidence, we keep giving it to you, then you simply change it to something else, pretty funny.

I might ask for evidence a little, but what you can't come up with is proof.

Why do you keep on saying, or even suggesting, that evolution is fact, when it is not known to be fact? Since you won't come out and say that we don't know for sure about evolution, and since you continue to promote evolution as fact when such is not known, you are part of the hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

[twthmoses]

I might ask for evidence a little, but what you can't come up with is proof.

Why do you keep on saying, or even suggesting, that evolution is fact, when it is not known to be fact? Since you won't come out and say that we don't know for sure about evolution, and since you continue to promote evolution as fact when such is not known, you are part of the hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

There is plenty of proof.  That you don’t like the proof, or call it by other names, does not mean it’s not proof.

Native Americans anno 1500’s, European contact and diseases. How come Native American could not coop with European diseases, if it was simply a question of adapting? After all 90% of Mexico’s population perished in a space of 50 years after Cortes' invasion of Mexico. 50 years sounds like plenty of time to “adapt”. Apparently it was not enough. No it’s not enough, because you need to “adapt” on a genetic level, we call that evolution and it takes many many generations.

[Ana Gene]

Why are there still monkeys if evolution is real?
Do you believe that we all came from Monkeys or Apes?

Why? Aren't the evidence and artifacts such as bones of Neanderthals and other homo species enough?
Sure, they look a little bit of an ape, but they are clearly nope.

Maybe our DNAs are shared with other species, even BANANAs have a large percentage of human DNA.

[BitPotus]

We live in a simulation.

Everything is a fucking hoax.

[FilesFM_Announcements]

Maybe our DNAs are shared with other species, even BANANAs have a large percentage of human DNA.

I think thats hilarious and had to google it.. “Humans share 50 per cent of their genes with a banana.” I still think its funny to think about!

[yaayaa]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

There is no evidence to back on, in fact there is a creator who is behind all creations