Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 140. (Read 108173 times)
I personally don't believe on the theory of evolution. While there might be creatures that adapted well in their environment, I am not convinced that something like a one celled organism can evolve into something very complex.
It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...
there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.
Charles Darwin himsalf said humans created dinosaurs so what are you talking about?
What the fuck are you talking about, are you drunk? Charles Darwin neglected dinosaurs as a part of his theory but thankfully, paleontologists continued their work and have exhumed absolutely stunning evidence that Darwin was right. Among the fossil riches some of the most precious are those of feathered dinosaurs, and I can only imagine what Darwin might say if he could see the proof that the swallows in the air and pigeons in the street are living dinosaurs.
there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.
Charles Darwin himsalf said humans created dinosaurs so what are you talking about?
there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.
there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
The only suspicion that evolution may be a hoax comes from the fact that people exist which claim it is a hoax and that the world was created in 7 days...
For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right
That is not how evolution works. Read what about what evolution is.
This myth of ''why are there still monkeys'' is such a cringe myth and sentence to say. I don't think people realize how stupid they sound when they say that. Just like the missing link myth.
For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right
That is not how evolution works. Read what about what evolution is.
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).
1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.
Astargath, there is no point using logic to denounce religious nutjobs, they are literally blinded by their faith.
Save your time, and leave him to his ridiculous fairy tales, soon enough they'll be laughed at and humiliated for their beliefs.
Yeah I see but it's just funny to me because most religious people actually believe in evolution now yet badecker still claims evolution is a hoax, even the fucking pope acknowledges evolution, I don't understand what he wants.
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).
1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.
Astargath, there is no point using logic to denounce religious nutjobs, they are literally blinded by their faith.
Save your time, and leave him to his ridiculous fairy tales, soon enough they'll be laughed at and humiliated for their beliefs.
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).
1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).
Maybe or maybe not. There still lots of unanswered questions in order to convince myself whether this theory is a hoax or not. For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right
There are many definitions of evolution . It is a simple change in an organism physical appearance , its been called an evolution , with plants when they change there structure , its an evolution. In my elementary and highschool days , they said that we humans came from monkeys and evolve from them. But this is only theory of a scientist. Why would be a monkey be human in the first place. And they also said that we humans are the most intelligent amongst animal.
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
Well, since man was not originally from the APE,therefore, the evolution of which in the schools say of course it's absurd,and avolume actually is,and many of the creatures in the universe evolyutsioniruet
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
Evolution is a religion. Because it is known to be untrue, it is a hoax as well.
If only you were sane, we could have some nice conversations.
Why would I want to converse with stupid?
There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.
Man evolved from a species of monkeys which for some reason felt the need to get down from the trees and walk the earth. Everything else was triggered by this. The rest of the monkeys didn't need to get down to the ground and you can see most of them living happily up there in the tree tops to this day. It was probably some circumstance specific to where the proto-humans lived and which wasn't present anywhere else. Just the same way as there are amazonian tribes who still haven't set foot into the 11th, let alone the 21th century.
My poop evolved to become a horse. That's true. I can't show it to you but I have evidence: You see, it took a lot of time to evolve.
How in the world old are you?
There's poop and horses in the world so they must have evolved from each other. I don't know how and it doesn't make sense but Richard Dawkins told me so so it must be true because he is famous scientist or something
Dawkins - Politician disguised as a scientist.
It seems you are not very intelligent, unlike me because I believe what Dawkins says, By the way, he is very popular. And you are hurting my feelings and my ego is under a threat by your claims. I must use my secret weapon to discredit you: YOU MUST BE A CREATIONIST! Now since I said that, you can't win.
LOL! You poor little hurt-feeling thing.
Since there are many contradictions to evolution...
and since everything in evolution can be applied to things other than evolution...
and since evolution scientists know this...
evolution is just a story.
Because the story of evolution is propagated by many people who know that evolution is just a story...
or who know that they don't know if evolution is true or not...
evolution is a hoax.
For those people who don't know that evolution is a hoax...
but who trust the high priests of evolution to be telling the truth...
evolution has become a religion for them.
Religion isn't wrong. Everybody needs a religion. But do you really want your pet religion to be something that is a hoax?
Jump to: