Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 16. (Read 108057 times)

Modern science much like modern art is an embarrassment.

I thought you knew the word theory, I'm sorry my bad. from someone who claims to have completed a thesis on evolutionary biology
this is an embarrassment. 

A huge step back? How long do you keep searching for Waldo before you realize he's not even in the picture and that you've been punked?

"A human skull retrofitted with an orangutan’s jaw and chimp’s teeth means Piltdown Man is a fucking hoax!" I know I've read about it
It was quite a scandal in the science community and a huge step back on human evolution theory. I still standby by my previous reply.
if you feel my previous comment doesn't apply to you, then ignore it.

^^^ A human skull retrofitted with an orangutan’s jaw and chimp’s teeth means Piltdown Man is a fucking hoax! The evidence for evolution is manufactured i.e. fraudulent and you've got the fucking balls to ask me if I've ever completed a doctoral thesis on evolutionary biology?

are you sure that the evidence you might or will provide isn't manufactured? it is easy to claim something you don't understand a hoax.
I won't claim anything from this type of topics since it is full of holes to counter every claim that has been made. my point is, it
is pointless to argue about it if neither of the party fully understand the subject they are arguing about. I'm not saying you don't
fully understand both subjects, but do you?

have a good day!

^^^ So instead of providing evidence the Earth is billions of years old to support the theory of evolution you're just going to go along with the establishment consensus that it is [billions of years old] and attack me, got it.

I can prove NASA astronauts are hanging from wires and that they landed a cardboard box on a the Moon but that's not the issue here. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that men "evolved" from monkeys then much like "outer space" you need to provide some evidence that isn't manufactured.

I've provided one reference so far that shows that evidence for evolution is in fact being manufactured. In your response you supported two three additional hoaxes, attacked me and, spammed links to a vast list of unproven radiometric dating techniques where results very widely. You need to cite actual evidence that the Earth is billions of years old.

If you claim we fell out of a monky's ass, then you need to back this extraordinary claim up with some credible evidence.

I'm sure you can mate, you are the dumbass who believes giants existed and space is a hoax. Go back to your troll thread, this one is too hard for you and you will only make a fool of yourself even more. Not worth debating with brain dead zombies like you, if you want to feel special by believing the earth is flat, go ahead.

So you can't prove the Earth is the billions of years old that evolution requires then? I can poke hols in radiometric dating techniques all day, the evidence for an Earth billions of years old is very weak.

Why don't you do a little research yourself? You can actually study these things and even test them for yourself. There are many methods used to calculate the age of the earth. Also ''I don't buy radio-carbon dating method'' is not an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating#Absolute_dating

I'm confident that I could turn organic plant and animal tissue into stone in a time-frame of weeks or days with a concrete-like process. That being said what proof does "science", and when I say "science" I don't mean the scientific method but instead, the authority-based crap the government and media forces on the public, what proof do they have that the Earth is older than 10,000 years?

I don't buy radio-carbon dating. Evolution as described by "science" requires billions of years, what proof is there of "billions of years ago"? I know the Earth is an engineered structure and for it to be any older than thousands of years is ridiculous.



"It turned out to be a human skull retrofitted with an orangutan’s jaw and chimp’s teeth" -- Piltdown Man: The Secret Life of Charles Dawson (2003)

Hahaha this so funny. You actually didnt realize the article is mocking creationists, did you?? Hahahaha

"I predict some Creationist/ID proponent who believes evolution is consistent with Creation/ID will take this as supporting evidence that evolution need not take billions of years."

This is beyond funny.

^^^ Still just a lizard:
So, where is the ETE proof? Even if this is a strong form of adaptation evolution, it is only the tiniest of beginnings toward proving that evolution is the thing that changes one kind of animal into another, and that this is the way that all creatures developed on earth.

Evolutionists desire evolution to be true so much, that they are working as hard as they can in every direction they can think of. Part of this work is to proclaim evolution as truth, even though all they have found is some possible evidence, and no fact.

I'm not saying that all this search and research isn't providing some useful knowledge about how nature operates. But calling it ETE when it is not known to be ETE in any sense is a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

But the big difference is that even though i might give them different genetics in the case of the lizards, the new ones always had bigger heads and the valves.
For humans, the example would be, me developing a bigger head and some sort of valve and then passing those genetics to my childrend and them to their childrend and so on forever. The difference in genetics between my children and me are small, we do always have 2 legs,  2 arms, 1 heart, etc. Developing a valve or another organ is a huge improvement and should definitely be considered evolution

^^^ Well, thank you for explaining about your kids. But, you are wrong. They did evolve, at least according to your definition of evolution. Why? Because you actually DID give them different genetics. After all, they are not exact copies of you, are they?

Your example of lizard change is not one lizard into a different kind of lizard. Rather, it's an example similar to breeding... which isn't the kind of evolution we are talking about.

Since science hasn't been able to find any evidence of ETE, the thing they are doing (you are showing examples of it) is to evolve the word "evolution" into meaning things that were not originally covered in its meaning. This kind of deceptive activity is called semantics. It is deceptive activity that is propagating (in this case) the evolution hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

The issue with non organic matter ''evolving'' into organic one is not about evolution. Evolution is about organisms changing/adapting into new organisms. What you are talking about is called abiogenesis and there is already some good evidence for it. It seems that it is in fact possible for non organic mater to change into organic mater.

If you have children - I mean like in your literal household - your children are human beings even though they are different than you or your spouse. To say they evolved would be stretching the term a little. Like animals, they have features common to others of their human grouping. Cows have similar features to cows. Lizards have common features to lizards. Etcetera.

If you want to call animals that change by adapting to their environment, or animals that simply adapt to their own individuality through in differences from their parents, or animals that are bred... to have evolved, that is really stretching the term "evolve" a bit.

If you want to say that some Chinese people are very small, and some of them are essentially giants, and that their hereditary changes are a form of evolution, you are really stretching the idea of evolution.

Why is it that you are stretching the idea of evolution? Because there would essentially be no use of the evolution idea with any of these forms if people were not looking for a literal change from one animal kind into a different animal kind. Does a fish ever change into a bird? Does a lizard ever change into a cow? Does one kind of fish ever change into a different kind of fish? Would or can one kind of animal ever change into another kind of an animal? We don't have any evidence of it. Lots of talk, but no examples that we know for a fact.

When we talk about evolution theory evolution (ETE), we are essentially talking a form of evolution similar to what Darwin expressed in his tree of life, or in some similar tree of life idea. Such evolution has never been proven to exist anywhere.

Attempting to apply the forms of so-called evolution that you suggest, to ETE as though they were a part of ETE, is something that we don't know ever happened anywhere. But saying that your forms of evolution are forms of ETE, while knowing that you don't know that they are, is exactly the thing that makes evolution a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax, you know it, and you are attempting to propagate this hoax. People are catching on regarding this hoax. It won't be long before evolution hoax dissolves into the silly nothingness charade that it is.



EDIT: Thanks for helping to prove that ETE is a hoax, by prompting me to show how it is a hoax, and how hoaxers like you and Dawkins are are trying to promote the evolution hoax.

Micro-evolution - yes.
Macro-evolution - no.

Non organic mater can't evolve into organic one. Evolution is based on environment requirements and organic mater adopting to those requirements.
To make it simple - what environmental requirements forced a mud to turn into a single cell organism?

It's mathematically possible... The 'beauty' of that argument is that you can apply it to anything with infinite amount of time and repetitions.
With this logic I can throw a bag full of Scrabble from a rooftop and eventually it will land forming Lord Of The Rings.
Claiming 'science' as explanation here has more to do with religion than religion with creationism.

Obviously some species of animals have some common features and are grouped that way. Do you understand that evolution is exactly what I linked above? Animals that ''evolve'' are animals that adapt to the environment through different processes AND pass their genetics to the next generations. If they simply adapted but didn't pass the genetics then it would be no evolution, however because they did pass their genetics, it's evolution. Is it really that hard to understand? This process can happen over and over again. For instance they have larger heads and developed cecal valves which all their children also have. How is this not evolution LOL?