Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

uuh, nice way to not answer the question.

I answered his religious question for what it was. Being a religious question shows that the reality of evolution exists in the religious talk. But that isn't really what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about evolution reality, not evolution religion.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Everybody - especially scientists - use C&E in everything they do, around the world. Scientists are among the first to acknowledge this. The only thing that you can come up with that might suggest random, is some radiation idea. But we know that your radiation idea is C&E, because whatever exists that radiates, had a cause to make it exist in the first place. Why? Because it exists. We have no evidence - and absolutely no proof - of anything that exists by spontaneously coming into being.

Since random is scientifically accepted to not exist because of the tremendous odds against it - C&E vastness without any example of random - evolution theory is built around something that scientifically doesn't exist.

IF few or nobody in science understood this about random and C&E, the idea of random would be acceptable, and evolution might not be as much of a hoax as it is. But since this is universally understood by scientists (although they might not think about it when studying the evolution idea and other things), the only response that can exist is that...

Evolution isn't simply a hoax, but evolution is a colossal hoax.

Prove it, how do you know everything has a cause if we only know the causes of 0.0000000000000000000001% of things in the universe?

I'm not here to answer all kinds of if ideas. I'm only here to show you how...

Evolution is a hoax.

Until you can prove that everything has a cause, your C&E argument is meaningless. So evolution is real.

[io.219832]

Everybody - especially scientists - use C&E in everything they do, around the world. Scientists are among the first to acknowledge this. The only thing that you can come up with that might suggest random, is some radiation idea. But we know that your radiation idea is C&E, because whatever exists that radiates, had a cause to make it exist in the first place. Why? Because it exists. We have no evidence - and absolutely no proof - of anything that exists by spontaneously coming into being.

Since random is scientifically accepted to not exist because of the tremendous odds against it - C&E vastness without any example of random - evolution theory is built around something that scientifically doesn't exist.

IF few or nobody in science understood this about random and C&E, the idea of random would be acceptable, and evolution might not be as much of a hoax as it is. But since this is universally understood by scientists (although they might not think about it when studying the evolution idea and other things), the only response that can exist is that...

Evolution isn't simply a hoax, but evolution is a colossal hoax.

Prove it, how do you know everything has a cause if we only know the causes of 0.0000000000000000000001% of things in the universe?

I'm not here to answer all kinds of if ideas. I'm only here to show you how...

Evolution is a hoax.

Until you can prove that everything has a cause, your C&E argument is meaningless. So evolution is real.

If evolution is a hoax does it mean a hoax is a evolution. You guys not logical here cmon.

[BADecker]

If evolution is a hoax does it mean a hoax is a evolution. You guys not logical here cmon.

Hoaxes can evolve, just like lies evolve as they are spread. The topic is evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Everybody - especially scientists - use C&E in everything they do, around the world. Scientists are among the first to acknowledge this. The only thing that you can come up with that might suggest random, is some radiation idea. But we know that your radiation idea is C&E, because whatever exists that radiates, had a cause to make it exist in the first place. Why? Because it exists. We have no evidence - and absolutely no proof - of anything that exists by spontaneously coming into being.

Since random is scientifically accepted to not exist because of the tremendous odds against it - C&E vastness without any example of random - evolution theory is built around something that scientifically doesn't exist.

IF few or nobody in science understood this about random and C&E, the idea of random would be acceptable, and evolution might not be as much of a hoax as it is. But since this is universally understood by scientists (although they might not think about it when studying the evolution idea and other things), the only response that can exist is that...

Evolution isn't simply a hoax, but evolution is a colossal hoax.

Prove it, how do you know everything has a cause if we only know the causes of 0.0000000000000000000001% of things in the universe?

I'm not here to answer all kinds of if ideas. I'm only here to show you how...

Evolution is a hoax.

Until you can prove that everything has a cause, your C&E argument is meaningless. So evolution is real.

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

[Astargath]

Everybody - especially scientists - use C&E in everything they do, around the world. Scientists are among the first to acknowledge this. The only thing that you can come up with that might suggest random, is some radiation idea. But we know that your radiation idea is C&E, because whatever exists that radiates, had a cause to make it exist in the first place. Why? Because it exists. We have no evidence - and absolutely no proof - of anything that exists by spontaneously coming into being.

Since random is scientifically accepted to not exist because of the tremendous odds against it - C&E vastness without any example of random - evolution theory is built around something that scientifically doesn't exist.

IF few or nobody in science understood this about random and C&E, the idea of random would be acceptable, and evolution might not be as much of a hoax as it is. But since this is universally understood by scientists (although they might not think about it when studying the evolution idea and other things), the only response that can exist is that...

Evolution isn't simply a hoax, but evolution is a colossal hoax.

Prove it, how do you know everything has a cause if we only know the causes of 0.0000000000000000000001% of things in the universe?

I'm not here to answer all kinds of if ideas. I'm only here to show you how...

Evolution is a hoax.

Until you can prove that everything has a cause, your C&E argument is meaningless. So evolution is real.

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything.

Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay.

You are  a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too.

[BADecker]

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything.

Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay.

You are  a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too.

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

[coins4commies]

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

We have great knowledge how genetic mutations are caused, that they are random, and that they lead to new/different traits being passed on to the next generation. We also know how natural selection works and can see it happening all the time in species with short generation times.   These are all things that are so easily replicable that it is being done in most high school level classes and up. 

There isn't "proof" of a scientific theory.  You need to understand that scientific theories don't need to be something that we have proof of.  The entire concept of science is crafting an explanation based on the evidence and all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. 

The point is that if people seriously look at the alternate possibility(ies), evolution becomes a not so grandiose of an idea. So, why is evolution promoted as reality? Nobody knows it is reality. Everybody who thinks it is, is denying a whole lot of alternative thinking. Saying fact, when fact is not known, is the thing that makes evolution to be a hoax.

Its not that scientists ignore other explanations, its just that no other explanation has evidence that even comes close to the comprehensive mountain of evidence we have suggesting evolution.  To "prove" evolution with the standards you are referencing, you would need a time machine, so that is a very unscientific argument.

[Astargath]

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything.

Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay.

You are  a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too.

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[BADecker]

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything.

Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay.

You are  a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too.

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

I just wanted you to think about it some more.  If the existence of true "randomness" is the only thing that you think is wrong with the Evolution Theory, then you might want to replace that word with something else and see if the theory still holds.

I know that your religious beliefs (that the Earth is 6000 years old etc) influence your reasoning.  Just imagine for a second, if there were no religions and if you looked at the evidence would you still conclude that the explanation is completely wrong?

If you cannot think out of your religious box, then I agree, you will always think that God created man from dirt and woman from a rib bone 6000 years ago.  That is ok, it is wrong, but it is ok for you to believe that.  I fully support your right to your own private delusion.

The fact that there isn't any pure random is simply the bottom line "thing" that is wrong with evolution theory. There are many things wrong with evolution. If you Google "impossible evolution," among the links you will find a lot of evolution sites that state why the impossible idea has been debunked. If you go through the many sites that explain why impossible evolution is debunked, they all state unknown facts for evolution. In other words, they all fail in their debunking of the fact that evolution is impossible.

In simple form, what happens is something like this. The impossible site says that evolution couldn't have happened because of some fact of nature that doesn't fit evolution. The evolution site that attempts to debunk this says that the impossible site is wrong, because we know that evolution is real. Certainly the details of the various sites go much deeper than this simple example, but they all act like this in essence.


As far as religious beliefs, I am not relying on them for the scientific evaluations I show. My religious beliefs only prompted me to figure out who was wrong. What is wrong with the standard age timeline is the fact that we don't know the physics of the earth back beyond about 5,000 years ago, the time the Sumerians and the Bible set for the Great Flood of Noah's day. We can guess that things went on smoothly, backwards beyond the 5,000 years, but we don't know it. In fact, we don't know a lot of things a lot closer to us than 5,000 years.

Why would I try to make waves by saying that we don't know about the physics before 5,000 years ago? It's not to make waves. Rather, it's to simply be honest. All the ideas of what went on prior to 5,000 years ago, are based on things that we see today, and our methods of attempting backwards extrapolation. We don't know what facts about how things worked in the ancient past we are missing in our backward extrapolation. We don't really have a clue that anything is correct in the standard age of the earth calculations back beyond 5,000 years. We are guessing and hoping that things in nature operated back then as they do today, so we CAN make accurate calculations. But we don't know. This means that the idea of billions of years is simply unknown to be factual.


One of the basic reasons that you bring up my religious ideas, is that you KNOW that you don't have any real facts for evolution. Knowing this, you also know that much of your trust in the idea of evolution, is similar to religion. So, you try to bring me into the idea of religion. But evolution theory is based in idea on science. It isn't really based on science, of course. Why not? Because much of evolution theory is guesswork regarding reality. This is shown in the fact that adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change fit so-called evolution happenings at least as good as the evolution idea fits them. So, which is right?

We see and recognize all kinds of adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that has nothing to do with evolution. So, why would we think that some of the adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that we see is really evolution because it looks like evolution theory a little? We don't have any reason for doing this.

All you are doing by bringing religion into it is showing that evolution is a religion. How and why? Because if you had anything that was solidly evolution, you would be focusing on that rather than the religion idea.

The absolute only reason why evolution is as popular as it is, is because of the ignorance of people over the decades to see that their findings are not evolution, and the continual hollering of many people, "evolution, evolution, evolution," when they don't know that there is any evolution. Since they don't know evolution is real, but talk like it is real...

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

We have great knowledge how genetic mutations are caused, that they are random, and that they lead to new/different traits being passed on to the next generation. We also know how natural selection works and can see it happening all the time in species with short generation times.   These are all things that are so easily replicable that it is being done in most high school level classes and up. 

But none of these things show us evolution into a new kind of creature. In addition, creating settings for change in a petri dish, is creating, not evolving.

There isn't "proof" of a scientific theory.  You need to understand that scientific theories don't need to be something that we have proof of.  The entire concept of science is crafting an explanation based on the evidence and all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. 

This is exactly the point. Science theory exists to pass on ideas, not to prove that something is factual. Once in a while some science theory is tested in just the right way, and is found to be fact... which takes it out of the realm of science theory.

Evolution theory is just like that. Evolution theory takes a bunch of facts about nature, and tries to say that evolution is real. By the definition of science theory, evolution is real in science theory only... not in the reality of nature. So far, evolution is in the realm of science theory. It isn't a fact of nature. So, why is it touted as being a fact of nature?

The point is that if people seriously look at the alternate possibility(ies), evolution becomes a not so grandiose of an idea. So, why is evolution promoted as reality? Nobody knows it is reality. Everybody who thinks it is, is denying a whole lot of alternative thinking. Saying fact, when fact is not known, is the thing that makes evolution to be a hoax.

Its not that scientists ignore other explanations, its just that no other explanation has evidence that even comes close to the comprehensive mountain of evidence we have suggesting evolution.  To "prove" evolution with the standards you are referencing, you would need a time machine, so that is a very unscientific argument.

Science still can't tell the difference between adaptation and "programmed" change in like-begets-like. However, if they DID find something that really could be classified as evolution in some petri dish, there is STILL no way to extrapolate backwards into the fossil record to show which of the creatures were evolving and which were not. The two basic reasons why evolution is not proven are: 1) no DNA to check it out the fossil record for sure; 2) C&E means programming, which means that everything was set up to act as it does, and evolution theory is exceptionally hazy on this reality.

[Astargath]

Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E.

Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything.

Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay.

You are  a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too.

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

[BADecker]

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

[Astargath]

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

'' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it.

[BADecker]

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

'' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it.

Do you mean that somebody actually knows the cause(s)? Prove it.

[Astargath]

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

'' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it.

Do you mean that somebody actually knows the cause(s)? Prove it.

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

[BADecker]

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

No, not bla bla,

''During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wave function into another, later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[39][40]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Unless you think quantum mechanics is also a hoax, at this point all science will be!!

[BADecker]

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

No, not bla bla,

''During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wave function into another, later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[39][40]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Unless you think quantum mechanics is also a hoax, at this point all science will be!!

When you read the article, science theory is mentioned at least several times. It is the nature of science theory to be a best science found up to that time. So, we don't know that pure random exists.

The idea of "unpredictable" means that they haven't been able to predict something with the knowledge and equipment that they have.

The "random" mentioned above isn't clear enough to know whether or not it is pure random, or random as used 200 years ago.

Quantum Mechanics, by its nature, can be used to find whatever answer you are looking for, if you work at it hard enough. This means that if pure random was determined by QM, the opposite of it could be determined as well.

This puts us right back where we were were before... countless numbers of proven C&E, but not one proven instance of pure random. This means that evolution is questionable, at best - or it would be if it hadn't been prove impossible by a bunch of other science. Since evolution is touted as fact when it is not known to be factual...

Evolution is a hoax.