Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

[BADecker]

That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. After all, we all know that life only has to do with evolution, and not abiogenesis... right?  

How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4uRWk06Wo0

Evolution is a hoax.

[af_newbie]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

It is an interesting discovery.  Scientists explained it.

What is your explanation?

[BADecker]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

It is an interesting discovery.  Scientists explained it.

What is your explanation?

Evolution is a hoax.     

[af_newbie]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

It is an interesting discovery.  Scientists explained it.

What is your explanation?

Evolution is a hoax.    

Is "Evolution is a hoax" the answer to everything in your world?

I asked you what do YOU think is the explanation why the soft tissue survived millions of years?

[BADecker]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

It is an interesting discovery.  Scientists explained it.

What is your explanation?

Evolution is a hoax.    

Is "Evolution is a hoax" the answer to everything in your world.

I asked you what do YOU think is the explanation why the soft tissue survived millions of years?

How in the world dense are you? You ask a stupid, simple question, and I give you a simple answer. You asked the simple question of what my explanation of the interesting discovery was. I gave you the simple answer, that evolution is a hoax.

Now you act like you asked me of why I think that soft tissue survived millions of years. Such wasn't what you asked the first time. Yet you deride me for answering your first question with the simple answer that that question deserved.

To say it plainly, as the video expressed, the soft tissue didn't survive for millions of years. The video says it look like tissue from the times of ancient Egypt. There isn't any millions of years. The earth is less than 7,000 years old according to best guesstimates of any scientist.

[af_newbie]

Proof that evolution is a hoax:

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA

It is an interesting discovery.  Scientists explained it.

What is your explanation?

Evolution is a hoax.    

Is "Evolution is a hoax" the answer to everything in your world.

I asked you what do YOU think is the explanation why the soft tissue survived millions of years?

How in the world dense are you? You ask a stupid, simple question, and I give you a simple answer. You asked the simple question of what my explanation of the interesting discovery was. I gave you the simple answer, that evolution is a hoax.

Now you act like you asked me of why I think that soft tissue survived millions of years. Such wasn't what you asked the first time. Yet you deride me for answering your first question with the simple answer that that question deserved.

To say it plainly, as the video expressed, the soft tissue didn't survive for millions of years. The video says it look like tissue from the times of ancient Egypt. There isn't any millions of years. The earth is less than 7,000 years old according to best guesstimates of any scientist.

That is not what science says.  I just wanted to hear from you one more time that Earth is less than 7,000 years old, ROFL.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html

[BADecker]

How in the world dense are you? You ask a stupid, simple question, and I give you a simple answer. You asked the simple question of what my explanation of the interesting discovery was. I gave you the simple answer, that evolution is a hoax.

Now you act like you asked me of why I think that soft tissue survived millions of years. Such wasn't what you asked the first time. Yet you deride me for answering your first question with the simple answer that that question deserved.

To say it plainly, as the video expressed, the soft tissue didn't survive for millions of years. The video says it look like tissue from the times of ancient Egypt. There isn't any millions of years. The earth is less than 7,000 years old according to best guesstimates of any scientist.

That is not what science says.  I just wanted to hear from you one more time that Earth is less than 7,000 years old, ROFL.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html

You have things mixed up. What science says is not always what scientists say. Science absolutely says that anything beyond about 5,000 years is not known for sure. Scientists agree when they say that to the best of their knowledge the earth is billions of years old. They know that the best of their knowledge can be easily mistaken on this subject... because of things they haven't taken into account.

The facts of dead, soft tissue not being able to last more than a few days, at most, without degradation, is common knowledge. Take any dead animal and place it underground. Dig it up a weak later and see the decay. Dig it up a year later, and you will have a hard time recognizing it.

Decayed dinosaur tissue would decay just as fast as any dead animal. But freeze the animal, and it might last for an indefinite period of time... but not millions of years.

Your evolution is failing you. Why?

Evolution is a hoax.

[af_newbie]

How in the world dense are you? You ask a stupid, simple question, and I give you a simple answer. You asked the simple question of what my explanation of the interesting discovery was. I gave you the simple answer, that evolution is a hoax.

Now you act like you asked me of why I think that soft tissue survived millions of years. Such wasn't what you asked the first time. Yet you deride me for answering your first question with the simple answer that that question deserved.

To say it plainly, as the video expressed, the soft tissue didn't survive for millions of years. The video says it look like tissue from the times of ancient Egypt. There isn't any millions of years. The earth is less than 7,000 years old according to best guesstimates of any scientist.

That is not what science says.  I just wanted to hear from you one more time that Earth is less than 7,000 years old, ROFL.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html

You have things mixed up. What science says is not always what scientists say. Science absolutely says that anything beyond about 5,000 years is not known for sure. Scientists agree when they say that to the best of their knowledge the earth is billions of years old. They know that the best of their knowledge can be easily mistaken on this subject... because of things they haven't taken into account.

The facts of dead, soft tissue not being able to last more than a few days, at most, without degradation, is common knowledge. Take any dead animal and place it underground. Dig it up a weak later and see the decay. Dig it up a year later, and you will have a hard time recognizing it.

Decayed dinosaur tissue would decay just as fast as any dead animal. But freeze the animal, and it might last for an indefinite period of time... but not millions of years.

Your evolution is failing you. Why?

Evolution is a hoax.

Then the dinosaurs should be running around a few days ago.  ROFL.

[BADecker]

How in the world dense are you? You ask a stupid, simple question, and I give you a simple answer. You asked the simple question of what my explanation of the interesting discovery was. I gave you the simple answer, that evolution is a hoax.

Now you act like you asked me of why I think that soft tissue survived millions of years. Such wasn't what you asked the first time. Yet you deride me for answering your first question with the simple answer that that question deserved.

To say it plainly, as the video expressed, the soft tissue didn't survive for millions of years. The video says it look like tissue from the times of ancient Egypt. There isn't any millions of years. The earth is less than 7,000 years old according to best guesstimates of any scientist.

That is not what science says.  I just wanted to hear from you one more time that Earth is less than 7,000 years old, ROFL.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html

You have things mixed up. What science says is not always what scientists say. Science absolutely says that anything beyond about 5,000 years is not known for sure. Scientists agree when they say that to the best of their knowledge the earth is billions of years old. They know that the best of their knowledge can be easily mistaken on this subject... because of things they haven't taken into account.

The facts of dead, soft tissue not being able to last more than a few days, at most, without degradation, is common knowledge. Take any dead animal and place it underground. Dig it up a weak later and see the decay. Dig it up a year later, and you will have a hard time recognizing it.

Decayed dinosaur tissue would decay just as fast as any dead animal. But freeze the animal, and it might last for an indefinite period of time... but not millions of years.

Your evolution is failing you. Why?

Evolution is a hoax.

Then the dinosaurs should be running around a few days ago.  ROFL.

Perhaps they are, somewhere on earth. But why do you think that 4 thousand or 5 thousand year old dinosaur tissue suggests that they are running around today? We have evidence of many species going extinct? Why would you think that the dinosaurs wouldn't?

[KingScorpio]

evolution is a good religion for those that fear all types of gods and divinities.

[BADecker]

evolution is a good religion for those that fear all types of gods and divinities.

What is amazing is that so many people simply accept evolution without really questioning it. when the question it, they don't see that all of evolution is talk. None of it is proof for evolution. Sure, there is proof of something. There is all that digging going on. But none of it really matches evolution theory. They only say it does.

[BADecker]

Evolution works, just like abiogenesis. Or to say it another way, evolution is simply an extension of abiogenesis.

Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

[DorisHank65]

There's only micro evolution, there are no proofs macro evolution exists.

[BADecker]

There's only micro evolution, there are no proofs macro evolution exists.

We still don't know for sure if microevolution fits evolution theory evolution or not.

[BADecker]

Can you be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pwnerL8M1pE

The one theme throughout the video is the idea that there is random. Actually, there is no random. When people think there is random, it's because they can't see all the causes. If they can't see all the causes, how can they think that they are seeing evolution? All they are doing is equating evolution with creation without knowing that they are doing it. Let's get down to the basics, and simply call it creation like it is.

Looking at this a little more deeply, consider 5 genes, only one of which can be turned on. What causes the one that is turned on to be the one that is turned on? Why not one of the other genes? Evolutionists will say that it is simply random action which moves a gene and not the others. Why do they say random?

They call it random, because they don't see, know, or understand the cause that turns a particular gene on without turning the others on. There isn't any random, or pure random as this would have to be if there were no particular cause(s).

There is no spontaneous generation of anything that has ever been proven to be such. Therefore a knowledgeable Christian cannot believe in evolution. A weak thinker can make the mistake of believing in something that is not true... and still be a Christian. But if he doesn't believe God above contradictory beliefs, he is in danger of losing his Christianity.

So, who is the child who is being brainwashed? The one who is taught that there is no evolution, or the one who is taught that there is?

[michaelkelly8798]

It's not about who believes what, there are many Christians who have inconsistent arguments that's undeniable, so are atheists, that's also undeniable. What's really inconsistent reasoning is believing spontaneous generation exists. That alone contradicts science. Believing a science that contradicts science makes no sense. Evolution as modern science explains it rests on the idea living can come from non living.

[ATMD]

It's not about who believes what, there are many Christians who have inconsistent arguments that's undeniable, so are atheists, that's also undeniable. What's really inconsistent reasoning is believing spontaneous generation exists. That alone contradicts science. Believing a science that contradicts science makes no sense. Evolution as modern science explains it rests on the idea living can come from non living.

I completely agree. We need to have reason to believe, not want to believe something because we are biased one way or another.

[BADecker]

We need a reason to believe evolution. We need some example of it happening that is not just words... and not simply some engineered genetics. Here's what we need.

We need Critter A that we think evolved into Critter B. Then we need the DNA of Critter A, and the changed DNA of it's offspring, baby Critter A+. Then we need the DNA from the grandchild - baby Critter A++. We need the whole line of DNA, showing how the changes came about, until it was finally Critter B.

We don't have anything close to the above.

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

But, even if we DID find one critter that changed into another, we would still have to find a whole bunch of them to even begin to suggest that evolution is the way present-day critters - plants and animals - came about.

We are so far from this that we might as well say...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

We need a reason to believe evolution. We need some example of it happening that is not just words... and not simply some engineered genetics. Here's what we need.

We need Critter A that we think evolved into Critter B. Then we need the DNA of Critter A, and the changed DNA of it's offspring, baby Critter A+. Then we need the DNA from the grandchild - baby Critter A++. We need the whole line of DNA, showing how the changes came about, until it was finally Critter B.

We don't have anything close to the above.

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

But, even if we DID find one critter that changed into another, we would still have to find a whole bunch of them to even begin to suggest that evolution is the way present-day critters - plants and animals - came about.

We are so far from this that we might as well say...

Evolution is a hoax.

If only we could document the spontaneous generation of just 1 complex life form then you would prove evolution is a hoax and god is real, unfortunately we have 0 examples of spontaneous generation like god supposedly did it and we have thousands of examples of evolution.