Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 13. (Read 108173 times)
If you hug your dog for too long, would you classify his reaction as "emotional"?
^^^ You don't know that animals have emotions. They might simply have been designed by God to look and act like they have emotions, to make man more comfortable in this life. But the animal emotion hoax is for another topic.
Many people say that evolution is a fact. Yet, they don't have any proof. Why not? Because all the evidence fits other things, besides fitting what evolution might be if it exists. So, they don't know if it is evolution they are observing or something else.
Here is where the evolution hoax lies. The evolution thinkers (not the common people who don't think about it very much) absolutely know that they don't know about evolution. But they keep on saying evolution is fact. Sounds like a hoax to me. Or if they simply wish and hope that evolution is real, sounds like a scientific religion/philosophy to me.
Many people say that evolution is a fact. Yet, they don't have any proof. Why not? Because all the evidence fits other things, besides fitting what evolution might be if it exists. So, they don't know if it is evolution they are observing or something else.
Here is where the evolution hoax lies. The evolution thinkers (not the common people who don't think about it very much) absolutely know that they don't know about evolution. But they keep on saying evolution is fact. Sounds like a hoax to me. Or if they simply wish and hope that evolution is real, sounds like a scientific religion/philosophy to me.
^^^ Right! Modern examinations of human DNA and DNA interactions are so extremely different than that of any animal, that there is no way that humans could have evolved from any animal that we have discovered. We haven't even found an animal that might be similar enough to the one we supposedly evolved from, to show that we could have had a prehistoric animal parent.
because they have the different sets of the evolutionary tree and they just have the similar DNA markers and some DNA similarities thats it nothing like that they can evolve into humans or something like that. if that is right then i do not think that human will ever have that senior mentality and the superior brain for thinking and as the science said it already that human evolve from monkeys or something then the humans should have more physical and even the more similarities to them in every aspect of science.
^^^ Did you actually take your smartphone camera along last time? Your DNA test kit?
Evolution is a hoax, but you are proving that you aren't that good.
Evolution is a hoax, but you are proving that you aren't that good.
The articles contain the evidence and proof you are asking for. Animals have been shown to evolve, the case of the toad is simply one of many. Just like the lizards they evolved by adapting to the new environment developing new features that are passed on through generations (evolution). This clearly shows that animals not only adapt but they can pass their new genes to their offspring and so on. Is it really difficult to understand this?
You have a normal animal, somehow its environment changes or its forced to go somewhere else and starts developing, say, longer legs, those genes are passed on and only longer legged animals exist, the others eventually die, now you have that animal but with longer legs. After thousands of years, they might be forced again to change for whatever reason, now they also develop a bigger head, so now you have longer legged, bigger heads animals, if you follow this progression, eventually after many years you will find a totally new animal, is it really hard to see this?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You said it: "... they might be forced ... ." Why did you say "might be?" Because you and everybody know that nobody knows.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: Next time you go back there, take your smartphone along, and snap a few pictures for us.
It was an example, dumbass, I already showed you instances where THEY WERE FORCED to move, look at the examples above and stop being a religious faggot. Do you really not understand the example or are you just fully delusional unable to accept anything that doesn't involve the magic daddy in the sky?
The articles contain the evidence and proof you are asking for. Animals have been shown to evolve, the case of the toad is simply one of many. Just like the lizards they evolved by adapting to the new environment developing new features that are passed on through generations (evolution). This clearly shows that animals not only adapt but they can pass their new genes to their offspring and so on. Is it really difficult to understand this?
You have a normal animal, somehow its environment changes or its forced to go somewhere else and starts developing, say, longer legs, those genes are passed on and only longer legged animals exist, the others eventually die, now you have that animal but with longer legs. After thousands of years, they might be forced again to change for whatever reason, now they also develop a bigger head, so now you have longer legged, bigger heads animals, if you follow this progression, eventually after many years you will find a totally new animal, is it really hard to see this?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You said it: "... they might be forced ... ." Why did you say "might be?" Because you and everybody know that nobody knows.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: Next time you go back there, take your smartphone along, and snap a few pictures for us.
^^^ The point isn't about linking articles. Neither is it about nature doing things without the involvement of mankind. The point is about proving evolution. Nothing you have shown has any proof that mankind, in his history and prehistory, was some other animal at some time. All science writings that suggest it don't show that their science wasn't something else.
Even if we could find something that was undeniably ETE, today... something that did not fit adaptation, simple change, or like-begets-like, at all... such isn't proof that life as we know it formed on earth by ETE. Why not? Because abiogenesis might have happened individually for billions of species in the distant past. We don't have any evidence that says it could not have.
There is no proof for evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: The simple fact that, since Darwin, and for thousands of years before, people have not been able to find evolution for a fact, shows that we are very inadequate for and incapable of finding stuff that is right in front of us, or that evolution doesn't exist.
Even if we could find something that was undeniably ETE, today... something that did not fit adaptation, simple change, or like-begets-like, at all... such isn't proof that life as we know it formed on earth by ETE. Why not? Because abiogenesis might have happened individually for billions of species in the distant past. We don't have any evidence that says it could not have.
There is no proof for evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: The simple fact that, since Darwin, and for thousands of years before, people have not been able to find evolution for a fact, shows that we are very inadequate for and incapable of finding stuff that is right in front of us, or that evolution doesn't exist.
The articles contain the evidence and proof you are asking for. Animals have been shown to evolve, the case of the toad is simply one of many. Just like the lizards they evolved by adapting to the new environment developing new features that are passed on through generations (evolution). This clearly shows that animals not only adapt but they can pass their new genes to their offspring and so on. Is it really difficult to understand this?
You have a normal animal, somehow its environment changes or its forced to go somewhere else and starts developing, say, longer legs, those genes are passed on and only longer legged animals exist, the others eventually die, now you have that animal but with longer legs. After thousands of years, they might be forced again to change for whatever reason, now they also develop a bigger head, so now you have longer legged, bigger heads animals, if you follow this progression, eventually after many years you will find a totally new animal, is it really hard to see this?
^^^ The point isn't about linking articles. Neither is it about nature doing things without the involvement of mankind. The point is about proving evolution. Nothing you have shown has any proof that mankind, in his history and prehistory, was some other animal at some time. All science writings that suggest it don't show that their science wasn't something else.
Even if we could find something that was undeniably ETE, today... something that did not fit adaptation, simple change, or like-begets-like, at all... such isn't proof that life as we know it formed on earth by ETE. Why not? Because abiogenesis might have happened individually for billions of species in the distant past. We don't have any evidence that says it could not have.
There is no proof for evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: The simple fact that, since Darwin, and for thousands of years before, people have not been able to find evolution for a fact, shows that we are very inadequate for and incapable of finding stuff that is right in front of us, or that evolution doesn't exist.
Even if we could find something that was undeniably ETE, today... something that did not fit adaptation, simple change, or like-begets-like, at all... such isn't proof that life as we know it formed on earth by ETE. Why not? Because abiogenesis might have happened individually for billions of species in the distant past. We don't have any evidence that says it could not have.
There is no proof for evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: The simple fact that, since Darwin, and for thousands of years before, people have not been able to find evolution for a fact, shows that we are very inadequate for and incapable of finding stuff that is right in front of us, or that evolution doesn't exist.
^^^ LOL! Now you are saying that nature does experiments according to the scientific method? What? Just because scientists are part of nature, does that really make nature the thing that does the science experiments? You are getting into philosophy with this, where we do things and analyze them according to our doing of them rather than according to the way they fit nature.
The lizards didn't have-to or not-have-to change their environment. They didn't change their environment, and couldn't change their environment. You seem to entirely enjoy suggesting nonsense just to distract from the fact that you don't have any proof for evolution.
When you look through the better science fiction stories, lots of things seem credible. So we see how evolution might seem to be credible. Animals don't develop changes to or in themselves. They change according to their environment acting on programming that has been placed inside of them - in their DNA - right from the Beginning.
Rather than acknowledge how things work, you would maintain something silly like evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
The lizards didn't have-to or not-have-to change their environment. They didn't change their environment, and couldn't change their environment. You seem to entirely enjoy suggesting nonsense just to distract from the fact that you don't have any proof for evolution.
When you look through the better science fiction stories, lots of things seem credible. So we see how evolution might seem to be credible. Animals don't develop changes to or in themselves. They change according to their environment acting on programming that has been placed inside of them - in their DNA - right from the Beginning.
Rather than acknowledge how things work, you would maintain something silly like evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
Don't worry, I linked plenty of other examples that didn't involve humans doing anything, just observing, for instance the cane toad (and many more which you clearly refuse to look at because you are a liar) https://www.canetoadsinoz.com/cane-toads-caused-evolution.html
See, this one also evolved and humans didn't even do anything, cya.
^^^ LOL! Now you are saying that nature does experiments according to the scientific method? What? Just because scientists are part of nature, does that really make nature the thing that does the science experiments? You are getting into philosophy with this, where we do things and analyze them according to our doing of them rather than according to the way they fit nature.
The lizards didn't have-to or not-have-to change their environment. They didn't change their environment, and couldn't change their environment. You seem to entirely enjoy suggesting nonsense just to distract from the fact that you don't have any proof for evolution.
When you look through the better science fiction stories, lots of things seem credible. So we see how evolution might seem to be credible. Animals don't develop changes to or in themselves. They change according to their environment acting on programming that has been placed inside of them - in their DNA - right from the Beginning.
Rather than acknowledge how things work, you would maintain something silly like evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
The lizards didn't have-to or not-have-to change their environment. They didn't change their environment, and couldn't change their environment. You seem to entirely enjoy suggesting nonsense just to distract from the fact that you don't have any proof for evolution.
When you look through the better science fiction stories, lots of things seem credible. So we see how evolution might seem to be credible. Animals don't develop changes to or in themselves. They change according to their environment acting on programming that has been placed inside of them - in their DNA - right from the Beginning.
Rather than acknowledge how things work, you would maintain something silly like evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
What do you understand as proof exactly? The evidence is extremely clear, we have a few lizards, we take them to another environment and they change, adapt and finally evolve and all of them become a different type of lizard, how is that not proof? Evolution is consistently tested through the scientific method, see:
https://www.ibiology.org/sessions/session-4-evolution-measured/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm
''In the absence of any other validated hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution stands as the most logical conclusion.'' Again, nothing in science is 100% a fact since you cannot prove that we are in a simulation, for instance so that argument can be used for literally anything, however as I said numerous times, evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, if you have a better one, simply propose it. So far no one has done it.
Did you not look at what you just posted?: "... we take them to another environment and they change." So, you set up an experiment and it worked out according to your plans, or at least according to your observations. What does this have to do with nature changing some microbe into all the various plants and animals over, possibly, millions of years?
Part of the big failure of evolution is that we aren't finding any evolution happening in nature. If we find something that looks like evolution, so far we have always found that it could be something else that we are seeing... something other than evolution. So, it isn't proof for evolution.
In our recent studies of the complexities of life, we have found that if evolution theory were the way that life happened, that it would have taken countless billions of years longer than our longest Big Bang timetables suggest. We simply didn't have the tools ten years ago to examine the complexities of life like we have today. Darwin had the same problem. He didn't have the tools to show him all kinds of complexities.
And all of this calculation is with the most favorable for evolution ecologies in mind. If you use logic the way that things really happen, evolution would be drowned out by the odds against it way before it had any kind of a chance ot happen at all. In other words, evolutionists are trying to talk people into the evolution odds thing in reverse of the way things happen.
In other words, we don't find any evolution happening for sure. And our abilities to find it are inadequate as shown by the fact that we aren't finding any. So, we were simply mistaken when we said evolution existed. But since we don't admit it, but continue to maintain the charade...
Evolution is a hoax.
You just said evolution doesnt use the scientific method and now you complain that we did experiments and went right according to previous observations? It shows that if those lizards had to change their environment for whatever reason they would have evolved accordingly, its a pretty clear proof of evidence lol. Its not hard to see how they could turn into another animal after a while if they were able to develop a whole new valve after such a short period of time.
Evolution is a hoax.
Anyone can experiment repeatedly to prove evolution is real. But if your faith in your creator is shaky, I understand your need for repetition.
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
What do you understand as proof exactly? The evidence is extremely clear, we have a few lizards, we take them to another environment and they change, adapt and finally evolve and all of them become a different type of lizard, how is that not proof? Evolution is consistently tested through the scientific method, see:
https://www.ibiology.org/sessions/session-4-evolution-measured/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm
''In the absence of any other validated hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution stands as the most logical conclusion.'' Again, nothing in science is 100% a fact since you cannot prove that we are in a simulation, for instance so that argument can be used for literally anything, however as I said numerous times, evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, if you have a better one, simply propose it. So far no one has done it.
Did you not look at what you just posted?: "... we take them to another environment and they change." So, you set up an experiment and it worked out according to your plans, or at least according to your observations. What does this have to do with nature changing some microbe into all the various plants and animals over, possibly, millions of years?
Part of the big failure of evolution is that we aren't finding any evolution happening in nature. If we find something that looks like evolution, so far we have always found that it could be something else that we are seeing... something other than evolution. So, it isn't proof for evolution.
In our recent studies of the complexities of life, we have found that if evolution theory were the way that life happened, that it would have taken countless billions of years longer than our longest Big Bang timetables suggest. We simply didn't have the tools ten years ago to examine the complexities of life like we have today. Darwin had the same problem. He didn't have the tools to show him all kinds of complexities.
And all of this calculation is with the most favorable for evolution ecologies in mind. If you use logic the way that things really happen, evolution would be drowned out by the odds against it way before it had any kind of a chance ot happen at all. In other words, evolutionists are trying to talk people into the evolution odds thing in reverse of the way things happen.
In other words, we don't find any evolution happening for sure. And our abilities to find it are inadequate as shown by the fact that we aren't finding any. So, we were simply mistaken when we said evolution existed. But since we don't admit it, but continue to maintain the charade...
Evolution is a hoax.
If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
What about the other choices we haven't discovered yet?
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
What do you understand as proof exactly? The evidence is extremely clear, we have a few lizards, we take them to another environment and they change, adapt and finally evolve and all of them become a different type of lizard, how is that not proof? Evolution is consistently tested through the scientific method, see:
https://www.ibiology.org/sessions/session-4-evolution-measured/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm
''In the absence of any other validated hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution stands as the most logical conclusion.'' Again, nothing in science is 100% a fact since you cannot prove that we are in a simulation, for instance so that argument can be used for literally anything, however as I said numerous times, evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, if you have a better one, simply propose it. So far no one has done it.
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof.
That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll.
Evolution is a hoax.
^^^ What argument? There isn't any evolution (ETE) that anyone has any evidence of, to say nothing about proof for. The whole ETE thing is a system of stories that are suppositions about what might be. But there are so many holes in it, besides the fact of no proof, that it should have been dropped as a theory long ago. In fact, the changes in the theory over the years are so great that it isn't really the same theory at all.
All you are attempting to do is maintain a hoax. And, of course, you are reasonably free to do so. It isn't about embarrassment. It's about credibility. And evolutionists are losing theirs.
God made nature so dynamically complex that science is just beginning to delve a little into the real complexity of it. Once they delve a little further, they are going to see that everything is programmed. There isn't any random change.
All you are attempting to do is maintain a hoax. And, of course, you are reasonably free to do so. It isn't about embarrassment. It's about credibility. And evolutionists are losing theirs.
God made nature so dynamically complex that science is just beginning to delve a little into the real complexity of it. Once they delve a little further, they are going to see that everything is programmed. There isn't any random change.
I provided several examples of evolution, your only response was to: link an article that was mocking creationists and saying, durr hurr but what if it was programmed by god to make it look like evolution in order to deceive us. I'm sorry but you are never going to be convinced, your delusion is too big at this point. You don't even admit you fucked up by linking an article against yourself (which you did twice btw, long time ago).
^^^ What argument? There isn't any evolution (ETE) that anyone has any evidence of, to say nothing about proof for. The whole ETE thing is a system of stories that are suppositions about what might be. But there are so many holes in it, besides the fact of no proof, that it should have been dropped as a theory long ago. In fact, the changes in the theory over the years are so great that it isn't really the same theory at all.
All you are attempting to do is maintain a hoax. And, of course, you are reasonably free to do so. It isn't about embarrassment. It's about credibility. And evolutionists are losing theirs.
God made nature so dynamically complex that science is just beginning to delve a little into the real complexity of it. Once they delve a little further, they are going to see that everything is programmed. There isn't any random change.
All you are attempting to do is maintain a hoax. And, of course, you are reasonably free to do so. It isn't about embarrassment. It's about credibility. And evolutionists are losing theirs.
God made nature so dynamically complex that science is just beginning to delve a little into the real complexity of it. Once they delve a little further, they are going to see that everything is programmed. There isn't any random change.
^^^ No proof that evolution exists there in what you posted.
You don't realize, do you, that the more you attempt to distract away from finding or expressing proof of ETE, the more you are really expressing that there isn't any.
Evolution is a hoax.
You don't realize, do you, that the more you attempt to distract away from finding or expressing proof of ETE, the more you are really expressing that there isn't any.
Evolution is a hoax.
You lost the argument when you linked an article that was intended to make fun of creationists and you didn't even realize it. It literally said so in the first paragraph: ''he title gets the principal objection of any creationist out of the way: yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they’re a different kind of lizard now. Evolution works.''
Do you actually not feel embarrassed or pathetic while continuing this conversation? You made a fool of yourself several times and you keep coming back for more? You are literally linking articles supporting evolution mate.
Jump to: