there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 145. (Read 108050 times)
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.
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?
Modern humans eventually killed the Neanderthals. Modern humans didn't go and kill at the gorillas and monkeys.
Not sure about that. Obviously there were some tensions between Neanderthals and humans, but the vast majority of the Neanderthals perished as a result of non-violent causes. Violence was common, and it was present between various groups of humans as well. But I am saying that the Neanderthals could not adjust to the changing climate and that may be the reason why they vanished.
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.
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?
That is your non-random, cause and effect response. Why would industrial revolution humans not be affected by C&E in their thinking, just the way we are being caused to post the way we are, by C&E?
Because humans didn't have an industrial revolution purposely to change the color of a moth, that's why. The cause of the industrial revolution are humans and other things. That's the cause, the effects are many, one of them being moths changing color, I still don't see any problems here. What is your point exactly?
Since cause and effect operates even on humans, humans DID have "their" industrial revolution purposely. The purpose and control simply weren't theirs. In fact, the main purpose might have been to change the color of moths for the main reason of our discussion, here, in this thread, in this forum.
It doesn't matter though. What matters is that the moth evolved. That's our argument here, no? If evolution is real. It doesn't matter what caused the evolution, what matters is that things evolve. You believe in free will yet you are telling me that human actions are already pre destined? How does that work with your belief in God?
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.
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.
Exactly that is why it is just a theory. It is a complete theory or analysis or guess by the scientist which does not occur. It is a pure scientific guess on how this one creature became like this because of the evolution theory. The thinking that we came from monkeys are really absurd. All the gorillas or monkeys in the cage should become humans right now.
What a ridiculous response, I notice that all those respondants clearly have no idea what the actual theory of evolution is.
NOBODY said we evolved from monkeys, monkeys, apes and humans share a common ancestor, meaning we all evolved from a common ancestor, and obviously diverged along that path.
Interesting how religiosity and low intelligence are positively correlated.
So if you say we didn't come from monkeys WHAT if no monkeys was ever around would we have humans walking this planet?..
So if no monkeys at all are you saying we would have humans
..So if my gran is my ancestor did i not evolve from him or her originally ..
Because without my gran i would be here..
So without monkeys would humans be walking this earth?..
So we come from MONKEYS..I rest my case
..Also did we evolve from plants?..
we come from a single point in time and life spread ..
But the fact monkeys come to be and as time went on because of the monkey we turned into a human..
Plant life fish life animal life human life all act the same in many ways from the fact we come from that single point in time..
We evolved from this earth like the grass in the fields..
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
yes, I think the theory of evolution can no longer be believed, and the theory of evolution is very much at odds with the religion we hold in which God created man as a better and perfect creature compared to monkeys even though there is little resemblance to bone structure or dna.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
in fact today there are still many monkeys that live around humans, they are still regular monkeys and will never be like humans.
Jump to: