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.

[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!!

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.

later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random).

Actually it's pretty clear, explained 3 different ways. Not deterministic, unpredictable and random, if you don't know what it means, use a dictionary

[twthmoses]

Hmm, what is the alternative? Let’s assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think it’s irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but it’s not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.

Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more “soft” species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.

These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?

Start a thread something like, "Alternatives to Evolution."

Evolution is not true because, among many other things, there is no random in nature. Everything operates through cause and effect. There are no random mutations. We might think that there are because of our inability to see most causes, directly. But science shows us more and more all the time that there are causes for everything.

You have a bunch of questions, many of which we don't have answers to, and never will until we can make a time viewer that can see into the past. All those questions would be there if evolution was real. The point isn't those questions. The point is that evolution is a hoax because we know reasons why it can't be real.

But, the biggest reason why evolution is a hoax is that we don't have even one proof for it, yet it is touted as being real.

Evolution is a hoax.

I’m in disagreement with that. You always say that there is no proof for Evolution and it can’t exist on account of C&E. If this is to be true, you will have to deal with the fossil record. Time is exceptional relevant to Evolution. Now while the fossil record in itself is not a direct proof that Evolution exists, the time frame they represent, is.

If your theory is to be true, of no Evolution, all these species, now as bones in the ground, must have started out at the same time. They certainly did not evolve from each other that you are sure of. So either there is many starts or they all started at the same time?

I can hardly find a more relevant question to an, Evolution is a hoax, thread. Time is a fundamental in Evolutionary theory, and if you are unable to explain how Dinosaurs relate to Human in the time frame, your theory has no merit whatsoever.

[BADecker]

Hmm, what is the alternative? Let’s assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think it’s irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but it’s not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.

Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more “soft” species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.

These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?

Start a thread something like, "Alternatives to Evolution."

Evolution is not true because, among many other things, there is no random in nature. Everything operates through cause and effect. There are no random mutations. We might think that there are because of our inability to see most causes, directly. But science shows us more and more all the time that there are causes for everything.

You have a bunch of questions, many of which we don't have answers to, and never will until we can make a time viewer that can see into the past. All those questions would be there if evolution was real. The point isn't those questions. The point is that evolution is a hoax because we know reasons why it can't be real.

But, the biggest reason why evolution is a hoax is that we don't have even one proof for it, yet it is touted as being real.

Evolution is a hoax.

I’m in disagreement with that. You always say that there is no proof for Evolution and it can’t exist on account of C&E. If this is to be true, you will have to deal with the fossil record. Time is exceptional relevant to Evolution. Now while the fossil record in itself is not a direct proof that Evolution exists, the time frame they represent, is.

The fossil record doesn't show evolutionary change. If two fossils are almost the same, but are slightly different, how do you tell if they are or are not of the same family or grouping or species? After all, parents and their children are very different sometimes, right now, yet have no genetic difference that could be attributed to evolutionary change. Why not the fossil record? Suggesting evolution is guesswork.

The time frame is guesswork. Some of the scientists who wrote about how to tell the age of the earth or universe, even state that the time frame is a big guess... that it is only there so that we have a way to categorize things. We have no proof of billions of years. We can barely tell that things dated from 5,000 years ago are really 5,000 years old.

If your theory is to be true, of no Evolution, all these species, now as bones in the ground, must have started out at the same time. They certainly did not evolve from each other that you are sure of. So either there is many starts or they all started at the same time?

The fact that there is no evolution as stated in evolution theory, is not a theory. It is a fact that evolution is not a fact.

Why do creatures that have not evolved from each other, have to have started at the same time? Why could they not simply start at different times, caused by some force that we don't know about?

Why could creatures not have started at the same time? The fossil record merely shows that there were a lot more creatures and kinds of creatures in the ancient past. It says nothing about them having evolved from each other.

I can hardly find a more relevant question to an, Evolution is a hoax, thread. Time is a fundamental in Evolutionary theory, and if you are unable to explain how Dinosaurs relate to Human in the time frame, your theory has no merit whatsoever.

When you do a detailed look into the various ways that scientists determine the age of the universe, all of them have questionability attached. One of the major questions revolves around the idea that operations in the universe and on earth acted differently than we assume they did back then/whenever. We don't know for a fact how history was made back then. We can't tell the age of the universe that way, because we don't know for a fact if things acted like we assume they did.

Five thousand years is about all the farther we can go back, basing it on pottery and language and mitochondria. Carbon and other radioactive dating are flawed, both in how they works, and in our approach for using them.

Evolution is a hoax, because it is touted as factual, when it is not known to be factual.

[BADecker]

later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random).

Actually, it's pretty clear, explained 3 different ways. Not deterministic, unpredictable and random, if you don't know what it means, use a dictionary

He is barking up the wrong tree.  He should just let it go.  Bible details cannot be defended.  It is like defending the Flat Earth concept.

If he wants, he can believe in some pantheistic God that nobody can prove or disprove, but the God in the Bible?  Sorry, all these scriptures are full of historical errors, pure supernatural nonsense, or self-contradictions.  All these Gods are the product of human imagination.

He jumps on the Evolution Theory because his church buddies came up with some silly reasons to say it is a hoax.

Let him say that the Evolution Theory is a hoax and we can all move on.  He is a disturbed individual.

Anyone who actually looked at the scientific evidence knows that it is as close to a fact as 2+2=4

Since this is an evolution thread, let's not waste time on defending or proving the Bible.

Back 100 years ago, there were a lot of things that science figured out. Then some later scientists showed why those earlier scientists were wrong.

Not deterministic and unpredictable only means that we haven't figured it out. But 100 years from now, scientists may have all the answers as to why. Why what? Why there is C&E in everything, and no pure random... as we commonly see all over the place today.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Why are you stuck on the word random?  The changes are not exactly random.

https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

Many variables influence the changes.

Relax, the Evolution Theory is a fact.

Good night, sleep tight.

Well, thank you for the good night, sleep tight wishes.

Absolutely, evolution theory is a fact. I mean, it is written down in different ways in loads of books, it is talked about and taught in schools, and scientists use its ideas to do all kinds of experiments. Why state the obvious? Evolution theory absolutely is a fact? But nobody has shown that evolution is a fact. And what does relaxing or not relaxing have to do with it?

From New Scientist: Evolution myths: Evolution is random:

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but.

From Wikipedia: Natural selection:

This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations.

Perhaps these writers don't know what they are talking about by using the word random. But it seems more likely that the word random is used throughout evolution ideas and evolution theory. Since it is used, it is important to define it in its use.

Roll the dice, flip a coin, or shoot some pool. Isn't the result often due to some randomness? Or is it only due to cause and effect? It's all due to cause and effect. The only random that exists is due to our inability to see/know/understand all the causes. In other words, random in science only comes from our weakness that denies us the ability to view all the causes.

For example. Science fact exists only when you can demonstrate something that is repeatable in science. And it has to be repeatable every time for the same set of circumstances. And it has to be shown that no other result can be derived from that set of circumstances.

So, how can we tell that evolution is factual? We can't duplicate all the forces involved, because we don't know them. But if we knew them, we still wouldn't even know how to measure all of them. But if we could measure all of them in the present, what does that have to do with the DNA measurements we would need from countless creatures over the thousands of years that evolution supposedly took place in the past? But even if we were able to take these DNA measurements from the distant past, we would still have to find a chain of DNA changes over thousands of years, that would provide a truly beneficial change in some creature by turning it into a better creature. If we don't find this stuff, we don't know that evolution happened. But even if we know that evolving does happen, we would need this stuff to show that evolution was a substantial reason for some of the creatures that we have. And if we found out that it was, we would still have to determine that there wasn't some form of creation or something else... just to say that evolution was how it all happened.

Not only have we not gotten to first base regarding things in the previous paragraph, but we haven't even decided where we are going to set up the baseball diamond.

To say that evolution is factual based on a bunch of creatures that look similar but different, and their fossils, without having the DNA to make this determination, is totally anti-science. Show us the proof for evolution, or stop saying that evolution is true, real, and factual. If you keep on saying that evolution is true, real, and factual, without having the stuff mentioned two paragraphs up, you are simply proving that you are not able to think, or are simply trusting what somebody else says, or are a liar.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random).

Actually, it's pretty clear, explained 3 different ways. Not deterministic, unpredictable and random, if you don't know what it means, use a dictionary

He is barking up the wrong tree.  He should just let it go.  Bible details cannot be defended.  It is like defending the Flat Earth concept.

If he wants, he can believe in some pantheistic God that nobody can prove or disprove, but the God in the Bible?  Sorry, all these scriptures are full of historical errors, pure supernatural nonsense, or self-contradictions.  All these Gods are the product of human imagination.

He jumps on the Evolution Theory because his church buddies came up with some silly reasons to say it is a hoax.

Let him say that the Evolution Theory is a hoax and we can all move on.  He is a disturbed individual.

Anyone who actually looked at the scientific evidence knows that it is as close to a fact as 2+2=4

Since this is an evolution thread, let's not waste time on defending or proving the Bible.

Back 100 years ago, there were a lot of things that science figured out. Then some later scientists showed why those earlier scientists were wrong.

Not deterministic and unpredictable only means that we haven't figured it out. But 100 years from now, scientists may have all the answers as to why. Why what? Why there is C&E in everything, and no pure random... as we commonly see all over the place today.

Evolution is a hoax.

No, lies.

Definition of unpredictable
: not predictable: such as
a : not able to be known or declared in advance
unpredictable weather
b : tending to behave in ways that cannot be predicted
an unpredictable boss

That's what you claim, that science just hasn't figure it out, how do you know for sure?

''there is C&E in everything'' Well it seems like that's not true.

[Moloch]

When are you guys going to realize that BADLogic lacks intellectual honesty/integrity, and has no interest in a debate that might lead to actual answers?

His replies will always be bullshit, supported with no facts or evidence... there will never be a link to a scientific article backing up any of his claims

Why bother arguing with someone like this?

Just let him go on with his nonsense, but please stop feeding the troll



"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded"

[BADecker]

When are you jokers going to remember that this topic is about evolution. Even if there were nothing that showed evolution to be impossible, evolution would still be so extremely far from being proven, that it should be dropped simply because it is a big waste of time - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg47076294#msg47076294.

However, since it is touted as factual...

Evolution is a hoax.

[repsol]

For me, evolution of hoaxes, my question is why is the theory of evolution taught in schools while evolution cannot be proven? For example, if humans come from monkeys, why are monkeys still there and not humans? I don't believe in evolution

[IndeecV]

Interestingly, people who do not believe in evolution. Do you believe that the wolf turned out to be a chihuahua? In this case, you recognize the selection, which means you understand that organisms can change. What is the problem then understand evolution?
About why monkeys still exist. The fact is that wolves also exist. But there are also terriers and bulldogs.