Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 204. (Read 108046 times)

WHAT? You stupid retard. You don't even know what believing in DNA means.

"If brains was gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to drive an ant's gocart around the inside of a cheerio."

"In the future there won't be retards denying evolution," because everybody will have forgotten about this stupidity. Why? Because, as written in other threads (and maybe even this one), religion is decreasing all over the place. And even the evolution religion will collapse.

If you wouldn't sit at the keyboard so long, your brains might have enough strength to understand the folly of the evolution fiction.

Oh wait, so you know believe in DNA? I thought you dismissed that and all the other science because it was circular reference? In the future there won't be retards denying evolution, as I previously mentioned educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. So hopefully in the future most people will be educated enough.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Lying scientists and the lying lies they tell | ZDNet
www.zdnet.com/article/lying-scientists-and-the-lying-lies-they-tell/
19 Jul 2016 - Then there's Yoshitaka Fujii, who reportedly holds the current record for most retractions at 183. Wouldn't it have been easier to just do the work ..

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their ...
news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111615/
16 Nov 2015 - Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about ... data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get ...

Are scientists lying more than ever? | ITworld
www.itworld.com/article/2718456/.../are-scientists-lying-more-than-ever-.html
5 Oct 2012 - Like many people who view themselves as objective and rational (which is, what, everybody?), I've always placed great trust in science. And for

When scientists lie - Ockham's Razor - ABC Radio National (Australian ...
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/...scientists-lie.../7660464
26 Jul 2016 - How can science identify and stop the fraudsters? ... He maintained, however, that he could not do so, as he had not kept his laboratory notes .

And your sitting listening to the theories saying 100% reliable ..

Science theory ..
To tell the public it's fact to get money..

Scientist are the liars to get funds..

And how many scientist are QUACKS? the list below tells you

SO HOW RELIABLE was these scientist theories ..?

Well according to you 100%

And that's the trouble with some of you SCIENTIST YOUR FUCKING LIARS
to get FUNDED by government or private..MONEY MONEY MONEY..

So you say SCIENCE THEORY is fact to get monies ..
And many of your theories turn out to be a lie..

SO like i said SCIENCE THEORY IS NOT FACT so prove it to be FACT..
NOT a theory like these scientist below..WAS THEY 100% RELIABLE?..
 
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan


Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

9. Spontaneous Generation


Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.


8. The Expanding Earth


Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory


First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

I don't think so, it's a natural process that take years, more than we can live.

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate... It's a collection of facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion...

SAY ALIENS PUT US HERE..So it it an obvious conclusion..?

It fucking you ..

STUPID CUNT..A theory is not FACT  SO FUCK OFF CUNT..

STUPID FUCKERS..

FUCK YOU CUNT i am telling him what a theory is OK twat..

He said a theory is this
So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability..

100% reliability land or sea
Quite a big difference to where we evolved from land or sea..

And like i said some say it's a pond of water..
BUT scientist never thought about moister in the AIR ..

We lived on a rock off the NUTRIENTS and the
moist air give us WATER and the rock give us NUTRIENTS ..

so shut the fuck up ..

What  scientist thought of that well one that you don't know off because you think we come from the sea ..

And are you say what i theorised is totally wrong?..ANSWER NO

You stupid shit many things come in dreams DUMB ASS

Scientists don't just make up theories for the sake of it..Because the HUMAN BEEN PROGRAMMED
to live to survive ..

And that's why the EARTH give our brains science..
To think of science to survive..TO LIVE ON..

you do know you have a brain and its a brain like all brains    so you dream of things like many humans do..
What you think of many others think the same..

Now i want to know IF we spun a rock same distance from the sun as earth at the same speed
would we be able to grow another EARTH..

Now i bet many scientist THEORISE the same   is it fact it will work with 100% reliability ..



Bu

YOUR THE DICK ..

Everything i say is the truth..
What is it i lie about ?..

When i just proved LAND OR SEA twat face..

So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability.

Is land or sea 100% reliable of a future prediction ..?

We might of lived on a rock and lived of the moist air ..?

LAND or SEA ..

I am proving points your proving none..LIKE A QUACK scientist..

So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability.

HIS HE RIGHT ^^^^^^^^^ Land or sea ..

ALIENS or monkeys who put us here ?..Still not know for sure..

Now i have just proved a scientific theory cannot be 100% reliable ..I JUST PROVED IT..
So now not a theory BUT A FACT ..

Everyone can see this post and see who is right AND I JUST PROVED YOU WRONG..

I'm sure at this point you are either trolling or you are mentally retarded (not as an insult but as the medical condition) Scientists don't just make up theories for the sake of it, moloch already explained to you what a scientific theory means and you are just ignoring it. What you said is not even a hypothesis.

What if we evolved in the clouds and we got to heavy and fell down to earth in the rain ..
 That means life started in the clouds..Another theory ..

Talking to badecker or popcorn is basically like talking to a pigeon. There is no point, I tried many times, they just deny everything to fit their crazy beliefs. You will not convince them, ever, this shows a failure in the education system and in general, people cannot critically think, they just keep repeating the same shit over and over again until they drive you crazy.

You are still being intentionally ignorant, so I'll clarify again

A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

I'm sorry you fail to understand the word theory in a scientific context... theory is the BEST it gets, it does not get any better... you cannot prove it more than theory... theory means it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt

There is zero debate whether scientific theory should be treated as fact or "just a hunch"... among scientists, anything called a theory can be relied upon to be an accurate description of reality... scientists will stake their life on a theory (and do so every day)... theory does not mean hypothesis... theory means it has been proven as well as possible given the entirety of information available to the planet... and zero people have come up with a justifiable reason to doubt the theory

So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability... scientists do not debate this, because they all understand this simple concept

If a theory could not 100% reliably predict future outcomes, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, and not called a theory

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate... It's a collection of facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion...

That is the theory charles darwin came up with, if you don't want to believe it, there are tons of other theories about revolution.