The theory of evolution "darwin" ever in reset, which says that man is descended from monkeys. I think it just bullshit, Because according to recent research conducted by scientists of the modern "harun yahya" states that humans have absolutely no similarities in terms of any with monkey.
Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 143. (Read 108173 times)
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material.
When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change.
In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on.
Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect.
Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming.
Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though.
No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is.
Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen.
Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random.
''RANDOM'' as not intended to make moths change color, are you dumb? The industrial revolution was caused by people, how does that change the truth that moths evolved or all the other animals evolve?
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material.
When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change.
In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on.
Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect.
Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming.
Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though.
No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is.
Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen.
Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material.
When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change.
In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on.
Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect.
Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming.
Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though.
No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material.
When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change.
In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on.
Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect.
Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming.
Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
Calling the observation that the survival chances of these moths depends on their color by the word 'evolution' does not provide any evidence, as it does not explain how new organs or even enzymes emerge in the genome.
The proper definition of 'by chance' in this discussion is ' without the intervention of an Intelligence'. For example, if you come across three bricks put on top of each other you know it is done by some person. The opposite claim would be that they are heaped by chance, ie by natural phenomena such as wind and thunder.
Even one single protein cannot emerge by itself from non-living latter, let alone organelles, let alone a living cell.
Case closed, next, lets examine a less ridiculous claim such as the theory that a spaceship emerged by chance without the necessity of an Intelligent Designer.
Case closed, next, lets examine a less ridiculous claim such as the theory that a spaceship emerged by chance without the necessity of an Intelligent Designer.
I dont believe in evolution GOD created man
I am very sure that evolution and reincarnation is nonsense that is always disseminated in the life of modern man. Although I don't know what the goal is
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science.
I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
If random is not opposite of cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both.
As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations.
You just flunked basic science, right along with the evolution scientists.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales.
Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?
''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''
You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2
You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind
Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.
What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.
Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.
There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.
Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.
What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).
A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.
Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.
You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.
The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.
You keep on banging on about evolution being false because we can't explain the exact way it came about due to cause and effect, and yet you believe in the unmoved mover fallacy.
Your God, supposedly eternal, immutable and without cause, the uncaused origin of everything..... Doesn't that seem hypocritical?
That's because this thread is about the religion known as evolution. How do you - yes, I mean you, - prove it is a religion? Because if you can't explain it, you have to believe in it. If you want to talk about God, why don't you do it in a thread about God?
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution.
Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer.
Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?
''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''
You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2
You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind
Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.
What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.
Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.
There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.
Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.
What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).
A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.
Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.
You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.
The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.
You keep on banging on about evolution being false because we can't explain the exact way it came about due to cause and effect, and yet you believe in the unmoved mover fallacy.
Your God, supposedly eternal, immutable and without cause, the uncaused origin of everything..... Doesn't that seem hypocritical?
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results.
Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is?
''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.''
You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2
You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind
Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality.
What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time.
Everything that fits the evolution idea can fit other things, as well. Some of the things are entirely false even for evolution. One example is random mutations.
There is no random. The law of cause and effect, upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows this.
Everything in the universe came about either by:
1. Cause and effect, or;
2. We don't know how it came about
However, because of the tremendous number of "things" that we know exist due to C&E, and because of the fact that we have not found even one thing that we know has pure random behind it, C&E stands as science law.
What does this mean regarding evolution mutations? It means that they have been caused by something. They are not random. Our idea of random only exists because we are too "weak" to see the complex, underlying causes(s).
A universe full of non-random happenings is a universe that was planned. If there is anything like evolution in existence, it was planned that way by whatever put the universe together. It is not the evolution that our evolution theory suggests.
Yes, they are CAUSED by chemical and photolytic damage to DNA, and remain due to the imperfect nature of the DNA repair machinery. Beneficial changes PERSIST due to natural selection. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything, we simply offer the current best fit as determined by the totality of evidence available.
You are right. You are talking about mutations that are caused by something. Those things were caused by other things. And those by others. What you are saying is that cause and effect did it. This means that we have to back beyond evolution and find out how cause and effect started before we can begin to think about whther or not there is truth to evolution.
The "current best fit" of scientists leaves all-pervading cause and effect out of the evolution equation. Therefore, it is not a realistic best fit.
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.
Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information.
Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth.
Thank you.
Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves.
Jump to: