Evolution is a hoax

[mOgliE]

I am perfectly fine with the logic, it is the verification that I wonder.

Let me give an illustration. let's suppose I grow apples. I picked an apple and keep it with me for three days. Then I go to a scientist and asks him to date my apple, the scientist uses some scientific method and says my apple is about three days old. I can verify it to be true because I grew and picked the apple myself. This is an example of a dating method that is verifiable.

Now I give a rock to the scientist and asks him to date the rock, he says it is 10 million years old, how can I know whether his method is really accurate? It cannot be verified by anyone whether it is true or not.

Well indeed.

But we have some elements that are old enough to be dated with carbon14 and that are of a date we know. Ceramics for example, from mesopotian era. We know how old they are and carbon14 dating is giving the same thing so...

You can also do it by combining different dating methodologies. If all dating methodologies give the same result, what are the chances that they're ALL wrong at the same time but still give the same "wrong" date?

[ATMD]

Well indeed.

But we have some elements that are old enough to be dated with carbon14 and that are of a date we know. Ceramics for example, from mesopotian era. We know how old they are and carbon14 dating is giving the same thing so...

You can also do it by combining different dating methodologies. If all dating methodologies give the same result, what are the chances that they're ALL wrong at the same time but still give the same "wrong" date?

I am googling for this ceramics carbon dating proof. What I got was this info from labmate-online.com

"Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay (both eminently quantifiable), scientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30,000 – 50,000 years. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached.

However, in the 1960s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. This indicated that equilibrium had not in fact been reached, throwing off scientists’ assumptions about carbon dating. They attempted to account for this by setting 1950 as a standard year for the ratio of C-12 to C-14, and measuring subsequent findings against that.

Has it Worked?
In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.

Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”

What does this mean for Contemporary Carbon Dating?
Essentially, this means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is not 100% reliable. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate."

For me, this makes the carbon dating method highly unreliable.

[mOgliE]

For me, this makes the carbon dating method highly unreliable.

And you're completely right.

But the problem here is that you're missing the numbers.
One Carbon dating isn't reliable. But when we date a specie, a fossile or something, we don't have only one carbon dating. We say "this specie existed 30 millions of years ago" because we dated 500 different fossile each of them 20 to 30 times and the average result seems to be 30 millions years.

That's not a one time problem, we don't have only one subject of experiment. We have thousands of fossiles all in differents shapes and states, each of them giving informations depending on where they are found, what does the environment look like...

The result is a compilation, it can't be false unless all those experiments are all false in the same average direction. That would be completely crazy.

[ATMD]

And you're completely right.

But the problem here is that you're missing the numbers.
One Carbon dating isn't reliable. But when we date a specie, a fossile or something, we don't have only one carbon dating. We say "this specie existed 30 millions of years ago" because we dated 500 different fossile each of them 20 to 30 times and the average result seems to be 30 millions years.

That's not a one time problem, we don't have only one subject of experiment. We have thousands of fossiles all in differents shapes and states, each of them giving informations depending on where they are found, what does the environment look like...

The result is a compilation, it can't be false unless all those experiments are all false in the same average direction. That would be completely crazy.

This is true, a compilation is always better than a single experiment. I guess sometimes when carbon dating has been shown to be wrong, that's when I wonder. That is all.

[BADecker]

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?

I guess you don't understand the nuances of English very well. Saying "if" and "believed" doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that somebody believes something. However, I commend you on your good use of the English second language for you.

The point is that believing something doesn't necessarily make it true. Since scientists at most only believe in evolution, they are hoaxing when they say that it is real. And you agreed with this when you thought to suggest that I was agreeing that most scientists believe in evolution... like a religion... or a cult.

So, you agree that evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

By the way, there is something I don't understand.

If you believe evolution is a hoax, does that mean humans have always existed? Or where do we come from?

Various people believe various things about where humans come from. Personally, I understand that God made us. But the point is, deep thinking evolutionist scientists know that there is no proof for evolution. Yet, some of them state that evolution is fact. When they do this, they are making evolution into a hoax.

If they said, we don't know, but we think that evolution is real, then it would not be a hoax.

[BADecker]

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?

HE WONT ADMIT ANYTHING EVER. I showed him statistics plenty of times and he never admits to be wrong, he is a delusional idiot, nothing to do with him.

You simply don't want to understand that there isn't any proof for evolution of the theory kind. How do we know that there isn't? Nobody has shown any. Show some, and show why it is proof.

Evolution is a hoax, and you know it.

[BADecker]

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

Everything that is called evolution fits something else better, like adaptation, like-begets-like, or simple change. Certainly you can call these things evolution, but that isn't the kind of evolution we are talking about. We are talking about evolution theory evolution (ETE).

There is no ETE. The DNA has never been examined for creatures over thousands of years where it might be proven that evolution. Since there is no DNA examination, how do we know that there were ETE changes? There simply might have been an extremely wide variety of creatures, without evolution. No proof.

In fact, the whole idea of DNA suggests programming through cause and effect. There is no true random, like there would have to be for natural selection to exist in some way. The only random that we have is the random of the ignorance of people to understand and know the cause and effect actions. Since people don't know, why do they say that they do? The whole ETE thing is a hoax, a religion, even a cult.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Facts are:
-Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact of how species evolve
-Evolution occures mainly by small changes of DNA that are, or not, selected in the specie

Facts are:
- Evolution is an idea that is proven only to be an idea.
- The evolution idea suggests that evolution occurs mainly by small changes in DNA.

Neither of these has been proven to produce changes from one creature to another in nature.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

But you don't even want to recognize that you are a personal character.

Creation is something that everything in the universe has to have. We haven't found anything spontaneous ever happening.

The Universe had to have been made by something outside the universe... according to the way the universe works.

We don't know that something outside the universe had to have a creator. Since creation stuff is part of the universe, it follows that stuff outside the universe - including the Creator - always existed.

[BADecker]

How did the Big Bang started?  We don't know for sure.  Probably it was caused by random quantum fluctuations that caused a significant decrease in entropy, causing positive feedback which resulted in the Big Bang.  See Poincaré recurrence theorem.  Maybe our universe always was and always will be in one form or another, doing Big Rip/Big Bangs every 10^10^10^10^56 years.

The fact that BB only suggests what might have happened, shows that BB is only an idea, like evolution. BB is far too incomplete to explain much of what we see in the universe, especially life. And the possibility for mistakes in BB theory do to things not being accounted for in our view of the past, shows that BB is a distraction from reality.

Scientists know this about BB. BB is a hoax, just like evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

This personal creator is eternal, always in existence, no point of origin.

Okey, dokey.  Problem "solved". 

Thanks, genius.

The point isn't knowing for a fact what happened. The point is knowing when something is only an idea. When an idea is touted as fact, while it is not known to be a fact, that's when a hoax is involved.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Good questions.

Evolution is still a theory for how different species arise, there is no evidence for that, and I find this is really important. We still need to be able to observe speciation in action in a laboratory or research facility to provide evidence for that. Personally I would like to see it too as I view this as being the ultimate proof for macro-evolution. Yes I know the process is slow and takes millions of years but this is why the mechanism is not testable nor falsifiable.

You mean how new species appear?

Well that's quite easy and has been largely proved...

Best example would be the chicken, easy and you know what it is today.

Chicken comes directly from reptiles just like all the other birds we know. How do we know that? Here is how we proceed:

-First we inventorize all the different species we can find
-Then we date them to be able to make a chronological timeline of the species
-Afterthat we try to regroup the species having common physical caracteristics
-Ultimately when we suspect there is a lineage between two or more species we check their DNA to see if one has indeed the genetic legacy of the other

Here is a more complete analysis of the reptile timeline for example and how we see that one is the descendant of the other: http://www.snakegenomics.org/CastoeLab/Publications_files/Shaney_etal.BookChapter.pdf

If that's not evolution... Then how did the chicken appear? It didn't exist 40 millions year ago so how did it appear all of a sudden if that's not evolution?

The whole idea of millions of years of existence hasn't been proven. All of the points you make have been arbitrarily adjusted to make evolution look real. It's all part of the evolutuion hoax.

[BADecker]

Well, that's because us humans are not intelligent enough or our brains aren't good enough to comprehend certain things. We know however that complexity can arise from very very simple rules. To you it might seem that life needs a creator or intelligent designer but the reality might be different, evidence certainly suggests so.

Actually, we don't know this at all. Everything that shows this also shows programming via DNA. This means that the appearance of complexity arising from simplicity exists without the fact of it.

[BADecker]

Yes thanks, I mean both methods actually. I understand the concept of half life and counting backwards but is there evidence that it has been used to date something accurately? How do we know this rock is 10 millions years old, for example. How do we prove that the radioactive method dated it accurately? Radioactive method says it should be 10 million years old, but how do we know this reading to be definitely true?

Well it's easy:

-If half life measurement is right then it means datation is right?
-If half life measurement is false it means we misunderstood how radioactivity works right?

Then how comes radioactivity works perfectly in all the millions of way we're using it daily (especially on medical field) for scanners, IRM, radiology, radiation therapy and all?

We know it's accurate because if it was not it would mean we understood badly radiation and we couldn't use it as precisely as we are doing right now.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

For there to exist as much C-14 today as there is, virtually the whole world would have had to have been made of C-14 a million years ago. The whole idea of using carbon dating for beyond a few years is completely flawed.

[BADecker]

Besides. To prove evolution, we will ultimately run into the uncertainty principle, or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We will never be able to prove evolution. They are hoaxing you when they tell you that evolution is real.

[sirazimuth]

~snip...load of bollocks~

By the way, there is something I don't understand.

If you believe evolution is a hoax, does that mean humans have always existed? Or where do we come from?

~snip...load of bollocks~

~snip...load of bollocks~

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

HE WONT ADMIT ANYTHING EVER. I showed him statistics plenty of times and he never admits to be wrong, he is a delusional idiot, nothing to do with him.

~snip...load of bollocks~

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

~snip...load of bollocks~

Facts are:
-Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact of how species evolve
-Evolution occures mainly by small changes of DNA that are, or not, selected in the specie

~snip...load of bollocks~

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

~snip...load of bollocks~

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

Okey, dokey.  Problem "solved". 

Thanks, genius.

~snip...load of bollocks~

Good questions.

Evolution is still a theory for how different species arise, there is no evidence for that, and I find this is really important. We still need to be able to observe speciation in action in a laboratory or research facility to provide evidence for that. Personally I would like to see it too as I view this as being the ultimate proof for macro-evolution. Yes I know the process is slow and takes millions of years but this is why the mechanism is not testable nor falsifiable.

You mean how new species appear?

Well that's quite easy and has been largely proved...

Best example would be the chicken, easy and you know what it is today.

Chicken comes directly from reptiles just like all the other birds we know. How do we know that? Here is how we proceed:

-First we inventorize all the different species we can find
-Then we date them to be able to make a chronological timeline of the species
-Afterthat we try to regroup the species having common physical caracteristics
-Ultimately when we suspect there is a lineage between two or more species we check their DNA to see if one has indeed the genetic legacy of the other

Here is a more complete analysis of the reptile timeline for example and how we see that one is the descendant of the other: http://www.snakegenomics.org/CastoeLab/Publications_files/Shaney_etal.BookChapter.pdf

If that's not evolution... Then how did the chicken appear? It didn't exist 40 millions year ago so how did it appear all of a sudden if that's not evolution?

~snip...load of bollocks~

Well, that's because us humans are not intelligent enough or our brains aren't good enough to comprehend certain things. We know however that complexity can arise from very very simple rules. To you it might seem that life needs a creator or intelligent designer but the reality might be different, evidence certainly suggests so.

~snip...load of bollocks~

~snip...utter and absolute load of bollocks~

Small wonder that an ignorant nutter who denies 100 plus years of science on the fact of evolution that all biology microbiology and modern medicine is based on,
doesn't know how to combine replies in one post and instead blatantly breaks forum rules by multi posting his  'evolution is a hoax" nonsense.

[mOgliE]

The whole idea of millions of years of existence hasn't been proven. All of the points you make have been arbitrarily adjusted to make evolution look real. It's all part of the evolutuion hoax.

Lol I think we have the answer we were looking for.

The guy thinks Earth is 6000 years old, what do you want to discuss with someone like him? xD

[Astargath]

The whole idea of millions of years of existence hasn't been proven. All of the points you make have been arbitrarily adjusted to make evolution look real. It's all part of the evolutuion hoax.

Lol I think we have the answer we were looking for.

The guy thinks Earth is 6000 years old, what do you want to discuss with someone like him? xD

He also believes slavery was good at one time and that women are inferior to men and should obey men.

[mOgliE]

The whole idea of millions of years of existence hasn't been proven. All of the points you make have been arbitrarily adjusted to make evolution look real. It's all part of the evolutuion hoax.

Lol I think we have the answer we were looking for.

The guy thinks Earth is 6000 years old, what do you want to discuss with someone like him? xD

He also believes slavery was good at one time and that women are inferior to men and should obey men.

Yeah it's just religious TECSHARE in fact.
Shame those two are homophobic dudes they would be great together xD