Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

Now you are talking about evolution theory evolution.     

I'm just using YOUR source to explain why you're wwrong on considering macroevolution is a thing.

You still haven't defined evolution or adaptation but still claim they're different and one is acceptable but not the other...

I'm not right or wrong about macroevolution. I was simply being kind, and showing you what it is.

I have spoken about evolution theory evolution (ETE) all over the place. Since it doesn't exist, you define it if you want it defined. ETE doesn't exist. Because of this, when knowledgeable people say it does, they are hoaxing other people.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

And evolution being a process that takes thousands of generations in most cases no one have ever seen it on humans with his bear eyes...

Since evolution takes thousands of years, and we have only had reliable DNA testing for a few decades, there is no way to ever prove that it was evolution that turned one creature into another. Why not? Because without DNA testing over all those thousands of years, we don't know that the two creatures didn't always exist, right from the beginning.

Evolutionists know this. That's why they suggest that evolution had to take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. That way it is difficult to prove that evolution is wrong. So, we can't prove that evolution is wrong or right.

But the point of this topic is that evolution is a hoax. Since people are saying that evolution exists, yet they don't have proof, they are hoaxing other people.

Evolution is a hoax.

[ATMD]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

[Astargath]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

[BADecker]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

Not all scientists, or even a majority of them, believe evolution. But for those who believe in evolution, too bad for them. However, there are probably way more who are protecting their job by admitting to evolution rather than what they really believe.

[ATMD]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

Scientists like Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) for example?

[BADecker]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

Scientists like Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) for example?

Stephen Meyer >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xRGtJHC1E.

[Astargath]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

Scientists like Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) for example?

1 guy? Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. this guy?

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

[BADecker]

If the evidence for evolution is so clear, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

It has never been scientifically proven that we came from single-celled organisms, and to use the atheist's favorite phrase:

"I won't believe anything until there is evidence"  

Well, among scientists there is no debate whether evolution is real or not so...

Scientists like Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) for example?

1 guy? Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. this guy?

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

The best FE people have is FE. The best evolutionists have is evolution.

 

[ATMD]

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

[Astargath]

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

''I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.'' Evolution doesn't deal with that and your alternative is a super intelligent all knowing being that snapped us into creation.

[BADecker]

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

''I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.'' Evolution doesn't deal with that and your alternative is a super intelligent all knowing being that snapped us into creation.

Actually, evolution HAS to deal with abiogenesis. Why? Because in everyday life, somehow inorganic material becomes organic. This is shown in the fact of the food we eat.

Let's say that we as people never eat anything that is not organic. But what about the organic food that we eat? Where is the point that it was NOT organic?

When you plant the seed, the seed is organic. As it is sprouting into a plant, does it ever "eat" and utilize-for-growth any inorganic material? Or does it absorb and use only organic material that humic microbes convert into organic material?

If it is the microbes that convert the inorganic matter into organic material, there is something very similar to abiogenesis happening right there.

Abiogenesis is part of the whole evolution process. Evolution wouldn't exist without abiogenesis. BUT, neither of them exist, so what's the point of talking about them? Nice science fiction, but stupid regarding reality.

[ATMD]

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

''I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.'' Evolution doesn't deal with that and your alternative is a super intelligent all knowing being that snapped us into creation.

Actually, evolution HAS to deal with abiogenesis. Why? Because in everyday life, somehow inorganic material becomes organic. This is shown in the fact of the food we eat.

Let's say that we as people never eat anything that is not organic. But what about the organic food that we eat? Where is the point that it was NOT organic?

When you plant the seed, the seed is organic. As it is sprouting into a plant, does it ever "eat" and utilize-for-growth any inorganic material? Or does it absorb and use only organic material that humic microbes convert into organic material?

If it is the microbes that convert the inorganic matter into organic material, there is something very similar to abiogenesis happening right there.

Abiogenesis is part of the whole evolution process. Evolution wouldn't exist without abiogenesis. BUT, neither of them exist, so what's the point of talking about them? Nice science fiction, but stupid regarding reality.

I agree, evolution needs to deal with this central issue of the origin of life, ignoring the issue does not make it go away.

[BADecker]

 

[Astargath]

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

''I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.'' Evolution doesn't deal with that and your alternative is a super intelligent all knowing being that snapped us into creation.

Actually, evolution HAS to deal with abiogenesis. Why? Because in everyday life, somehow inorganic material becomes organic. This is shown in the fact of the food we eat.

Let's say that we as people never eat anything that is not organic. But what about the organic food that we eat? Where is the point that it was NOT organic?

When you plant the seed, the seed is organic. As it is sprouting into a plant, does it ever "eat" and utilize-for-growth any inorganic material? Or does it absorb and use only organic material that humic microbes convert into organic material?

If it is the microbes that convert the inorganic matter into organic material, there is something very similar to abiogenesis happening right there.

Abiogenesis is part of the whole evolution process. Evolution wouldn't exist without abiogenesis. BUT, neither of them exist, so what's the point of talking about them? Nice science fiction, but stupid regarding reality.

I agree, evolution needs to deal with this central issue of the origin of life, ignoring the issue does not make it go away.

Different theories for different problems. The origin of life is a very difficult problem to solve since there was only one or few instances of it and we can't go back in time, the evidence is also really weak since it only happened in the beginning, it's not a process that has been happening all the time like evolution. Abiogenesis is doing quite well but we can't be sure, even though it proved that most amino acids can be synthesized from inorganic compounds it's still not complete. We will never be able to know exactly what happened in the beginning even if we create complex life, we can't be sure that's what happened.

[ATMD]

Different theories for different problems. The origin of life is a very difficult problem to solve since there was only one or few instances of it and we can't go back in time, the evidence is also really weak since it only happened in the beginning, it's not a process that has been happening all the time like evolution. Abiogenesis is doing quite well but we can't be sure, even though it proved that most amino acids can be synthesized from inorganic compounds it's still not complete. We will never be able to know exactly what happened in the beginning even if we create complex life, we can't be sure that's what happened.

You are perfectly right, abiogenesis is a very difficult problem to solve. I will take it one step further. Even if scientists could one day find a way to synthesize life from inorganic materials, it would only be evidence that life could exist from non-life, however it still can not be evidence that life could exist from randomness. Those scientists doing the experiment would resemble intelligent design, they would act as agency in the way God acts to create life from inorganic substances via natural albeit carefully designed procedures. The only way to show that intelligent design is unnecessary is to simply put the inorganic materials together randomly and leave the laboratory, and then one day come back to find those substances alive.

To me, it seems like DNA or "the book of life" is much more complex than the most sophisticated Shakespeare, and I find it difficult to believe that this book could have been written to perfection (for life to occur) by random, unintelligent processes.

[BADecker]

Evolution is only real from the standpoint that there are many books about it, many websites about it, and many people thinking and talking about it. There absolutely is no proof that evolution exists in nature.

Evolution is a hoax... or does somebody have some proof that is not just talk? Please show it here.

[mOgliE]

Not all scientists, or even a majority of them, believe evolution. But for those who believe in evolution, too bad for them. However, there are probably way more who are protecting their job by admitting to evolution rather than what they really believe.

Please,

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

97% of scientists fully support evolution theory.

There is NO DEBATE on evolution, the only debate there is is here, because of people like you who are not much more clever than flat earthers.

[BADecker]

Not all scientists, or even a majority of them, believe evolution. But for those who believe in evolution, too bad for them. However, there are probably way more who are protecting their job by admitting to evolution rather than what they really believe.

Please,

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

97% of scientists fully support evolution theory.

There is NO DEBATE on evolution, the only debate there is is here, because of people like you who are not much more clever than flat earthers.

Oh, puH-lease.

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what? Often the majority have been wrong. In this case, most of the believers simply believe what their evolutionist colleagues say. They haven't taken time to do the investigations themselves... at least not in a conclusive way.

But... I DO thank you for this link. I'm sure there are many more like it. Why do I thank you? Because the whole talk at the site talks about what scientists believe, not what they know. Since they believe that evolution is real, why do they not say it? Rather, many of them say that evolution is real, when they only believe it.

Who owns "Joe's Corner Pizza?" Almost 100% of the patrons believe that Joe owns it. How many of them know that Joe owns it? The few who looked at the deed... or doesn't Joe own it?

Same with scientists and evolution. The more who say that evolution is real, the bigger hoax it becomes, because none of them have proof.

Evolution is a hoax.

[mOgliE]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?