Evolution is a hoax

[Bitcoinwalks]

I agree with you!, I never imagined the human as a monkey! Evolution of man is just a laughing matter.

[1715278291]

1715278291

[1715278291]

1715278291

[1715278291]

1715278291

[1715278291]

1715278291

[Brunus]

It's unbelievable that more something is difficult to demonstrate, more people have strong believes, in both positions.

[BADecker]

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, science had figured out that life is so complex that the odds for accidental evolution to have happened were entirely impossible. Presently, in 2019, science has advanced so far that much, much more of the complexity of life has come to view.

Scientifically we don't know how life might have come about. But we have proven by the simple odds of random chance happenings that evolution couldn't possible have come about by accident. This means that any form of evolution that we can think up is impossible.

[af_newbie]

Oh come on! A measly 1,000 scientists is nothing, right?


Over 1,000 scientists sign statement expressing skepticism over Darwinism, encouraging new questions about the origins of life.

Over 1,000 scientists have now joined the growing movement to challenge prevailing evolutionary theory. Under present scientific dictatorship, theories like Darwinism go virtually undisputed; challenging such a widely accepted belief is almost certainly career suicide. But as the “dissent from Darwin” movement shows, even the most “established” of theories should still be subject to scrutiny.

To continue to blindly accept a theory, even with evidence to the contrary, is more akin to brain-washing. The true spirit of science, after all, is to question — not to follow.

The aptly-named list, “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” surpassed 1,000 names in early 2019. Respected professionals from around the country who’ve earned doctorate degrees from top-tier universities are joining forces to remind the establishment, and the public, that what scientists know, and what they think they know are two different things.

Dissenting from Darwinism

The Dissent from Darwin list was created in 2001 and is maintained by the Discovery Institute. All 1,043 dissenters have signed the same 32-word statement, which reads:

...

Klinghoffer states further:

   Such is the power of groupthink. The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that ‘the scientists’ are all in agreement and only ‘poets,’ ‘lawyers,’ and other ‘daft rubes’ doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-12-more-than-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-from-darwinism-statement.html

"Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute."

Better list all the professional biologists who study evolution and believe that evolution is a hoax.  

BTW, MDs, chemists, engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists are not experts in evolutionary science.

It is like asking dentists to assess the viability of civil engineering projects.

[BADecker]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

[larssyk]

af_newbie so maybe it wasn't completely accidental and conducted on it's own. Maybe it was stepped-up or even stimulated in some way. I mean, it wouldn't even come as a surprise to me...

[Astargath]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

[BADecker]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods. - Science never proved such. And they even state it by calling their own calculations "theory." All science has done is to formulate ideas that interpret observations in ways that they want, not in ways that are necessarily factual.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

Since your points destroy themselves, there isn't anything to win.

[spadormie]

What do you call those giraffes that do not have long necks? Yes, it's true, they existed. What their ancestors thought on how to reach the fruit that is on the top of the tree? They just put to their mind on how to reach it. So, as time pass by, they acquired long necks. How can you say it's a hoax?

[azkielt]

Evolution is no a thing, is not a property of livings things, is a process. And is very simple to understand, things evolve by natural selection, very random small mutations in a species, some goods, some bad, the good ones that are more suitable to adapt to the environment are the ones who are transmitted because the organisms have a small more chance to survive, the bad ones just are discarded because they bring issues to organism and have small chances to survive and transmit the bad mutation in the reproduction. All this plus millions of years and that is evolution, off course if you think that Earth have only like 6000 years and the whole universe is just made for us off course you can't believe in evolution. Personally I would like the christian version of the world that is shown in Supernatural (the TV show), where evolution occurred but guide by God, and he is a bisexual old man who like cats and doesn't care about the world, that sounds more credible than old school religions.

[BADecker]

^^^ The evolution religion/philosophy is just a story that has been shown to not exist. Why doesn't it exist in reality? The complexity of life shows that life could not come about by accidental mutations in any way we can possibly think up. The odds are simply infinitely against evolution.

The trick to billions of years regarding evolution is, if the evolution story were real, it would take billions of billions of years for evolution to come about randomly. The funny thing about it is, the evolutionists have billions of years backward. The fact is, the longer the time, the less chance for evolution to have happened. Why? Because those random happenings that destroy evolution become way more abundant with more time, just like the growing evolution would.

Evolution is a big fat hoax. But for evolution believers, it is a philosophy or a religion.

[Astargath]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods. - Science never proved such. And they even state it by calling their own calculations "theory." All science has done is to formulate ideas that interpret observations in ways that they want, not in ways that are necessarily factual.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

Since your points destroy themselves, there isn't anything to win.

One of them it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating and it's not a theory, even if it was a scientific theory, I know you have no problem believing in gravity, do you? That's a scientific theory too btw.

''Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.'' Nope, ''the mathematical impossibility'' of evolution is based on old and wrong data as shown in that link and many more.

[BADecker]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods. - Science never proved such. And they even state it by calling their own calculations "theory." All science has done is to formulate ideas that interpret observations in ways that they want, not in ways that are necessarily factual.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

Since your points destroy themselves, there isn't anything to win.

One of them it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating and it's not a theory, even if it was a scientific theory, I know you have no problem believing in gravity, do you? That's a scientific theory too btw.

''Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.'' Nope, ''the mathematical impossibility'' of evolution is based on old and wrong data as shown in that link and many more.

Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact, used by everyone every day of his life (except for folks on the ISS, of course). Gravity theory is the theory, not gravity fact.

As I said in my previous post. New findings regarding the complexity of life show us that random chance can't bring about evolution in anything near the scientifically accepted age of the universe. But that is only if evolution happenstance worked the way that evolutionist say that it does.

The fact of the matter is that evolutionists have it backward. How? Because they avoid the increase in the things that would destroy evolution, but focus on the things that increase evolution. In other words, the longer you roll the dice, the more chance you have to roll a particular sequence. But the greater the chances that you won't roll that particular sequence at the same time.

Evolution is a complete fantasy hoax.

[azkielt]

^^^ The evolution religion/philosophy

 So the main argument that completely destroy almost all religions in the planet if the people is able to understand it and know what it represent is a religion??

^^^ The funny thing about it is, the evolutionists have billions of years backward. The fact is, the longer the time, the less chance for evolution to have happened. Why? Because those random happenings that destroy evolution become way more abundant with more time, just like the growing evolution would.

Dude, read what I said about how evolution work or search yourself about how evolution works. And again the random changes are preserved via reproduction if the animal survive and that is because the change is better for the adaptation to the environment and the whole process happens in millions of years, something similar are the atrocities that we humans do to dogs to create the "races", preserving only what we want via reproduction.

[azkielt]

Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact,

Evolution and gravity are scientific theorys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) you are confusing it with the word hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

[Astargath]

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods. - Science never proved such. And they even state it by calling their own calculations "theory." All science has done is to formulate ideas that interpret observations in ways that they want, not in ways that are necessarily factual.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

Since your points destroy themselves, there isn't anything to win.

One of them it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating and it's not a theory, even if it was a scientific theory, I know you have no problem believing in gravity, do you? That's a scientific theory too btw.

''Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.'' Nope, ''the mathematical impossibility'' of evolution is based on old and wrong data as shown in that link and many more.

Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact, used by everyone every day of his life (except for folks on the ISS, of course). Gravity theory is the theory, not gravity fact.

As I said in my previous post. New findings regarding the complexity of life show us that random chance can't bring about evolution in anything near the scientifically accepted age of the universe. But that is only if evolution happenstance worked the way that evolutionist say that it does.

The fact of the matter is that evolutionists have it backward. How? Because they avoid the increase in the things that would destroy evolution, but focus on the things that increase evolution. In other words, the longer you roll the dice, the more chance you have to roll a particular sequence. But the greater the chances that you won't roll that particular sequence at the same time.

Evolution is a complete fantasy hoax.

''New findings regarding the complexity of life show us that random chance can't bring about evolution'' Where are these new findings, can you link it?

As the post above said, gravity is a scientific theory but I'm sure you know that, you simply ignore it on purpose because it fits your argument, as usual.

[DonFacundo]

I also not believe that evolution, but I believe that we humans were made by high intelligent being...

[BADecker]

^^^ The evolution religion/philosophy

 So the main argument that completely destroy almost all religions in the planet if the people is able to understand it and know what it represent is a religion??

^^^ The funny thing about it is, the evolutionists have billions of years backward. The fact is, the longer the time, the less chance for evolution to have happened. Why? Because those random happenings that destroy evolution become way more abundant with more time, just like the growing evolution would.

Dude, read what I said about how evolution work or search yourself about how evolution works. And again the random changes are preserved via reproduction if the animal survive and that is because the change is better for the adaptation to the environment and the whole process happens in millions of years, something similar are the atrocities that we humans do to dogs to create the "races", preserving only what we want via reproduction.

Except for the one, little part. Evolution is only a story. Everything that is proven to exist in evolution, fits something else better... like adaptation or simple change, and especially like-begets-like. There is no proof for the main part of evolution, which is, that all life came from a single cell that developed from the inanimate.

So, why would anyone want to research evolution? Evolution is a wonderful science fiction story, but it is absolutely disgusting as the religion it has turned into.

[BADecker]

Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact,

Evolution and gravity are scientific theorys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) you are confusing it with the word hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

To say that evolution and gravity are theories is to say that they are not known to exist factually.

Gravity exists. People use it all the time everyday.

Evolution doesn't exist that we know of.

[BADecker]

Survival of the fittest shows that evolution is false. How? Since there are multitudes of bad mutations that happen for each good mutation, the so-called fittest is the bad mutations. This means that the bad mutations are destroying the good mutations by survival of the fittest. Bad mutation by their abundance are the fittest.

We are proving this by the few numbers of what appear to be good mutations that we find anywhere in nature. If they happened to be good mutations... how can we tell for sure?... except if we examine many generations of the creatures involved, to see if the changes are good.

We can barely find any beneficial mutations in nature. The best we can do is take life out of nature, and place it in test tubes and petri dishes, and give it "comfortable" living conditions, and watch how it grows unnaturally. This isn't evolution. This is manipulation.

We haven't found any evolution in nature. All we have is stories about what to look for. But we are not finding what the stories suggest should be there.

All the dinosaur bones and digs are producing part of a story. But the story isn't evolution.