Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 211. (Read 108046 times)

Domesticating and breeding are not the exact same things as evolution. You can't see the humans' ancestors now because they evolved into humans.

Monkeys weren't an ancestor of humans? Much like house cats and lions.

What are we evolving to if evolution by nature was a random event? when you think about it, how could a single cell know that it needs to evolve into something more complex and smarter? you can't have a creature with the IQ of 2 evolving into a creature with the IQ of 3 because in order to have 3 you'll need to have 4 and for having 4 you'll need to have 5 and it goes to the point where you'll understand there is a creator to everything.

Pick up and read almost any good or popular science fiction story, or a good novel, perhaps. One of the things that makes the story interesting is its believability. In order to make it believable, the author has to take all of the common life facts available, and add some elements of non-fact to it, and add an unique twist.

That's what the evolution idea is. It's a story that has a lot of facts put together in new and novel ways. It's just like a science fiction story or novel.

The thing that makes evolution just an idea is, 100% of the facts that evolutionists uses to evidence or prove evolution, can be applied to other ideas in other ways which don't involve the evolution fiction at all (those ideas that are not complete non-fact, that is). Possibly the greatest of these is the scientific law of cause and effect.

In-depth examination of the science law of cause and effect shows that every molecule, every atom, every subatomic particle, every wave of photons that make up light, have all been caused to act as they do by one or many similar or different particles acting on them, causing them to act as they do.

There isn't even the slightest bit of random in all this. If there were, we would see a breakdown of the laws of physics in the universe. And the breakdown of even the "weakest" law of physics would probably cause the destruction of the whole universe, instantaneously.

What does this have to do with evolution? The things that the evolutionist calls evolution, were set in place in a very orderly fashion, by whatever set cause and effect in place. This means that it was essentially programmed. Programming means intelligence... the programmer.

Observe the pandemonium that exists within the exploding hydrogen bomb. Every last atom and molecule in that explosion acts exactly according to preset laws of physics. Not one particle, not one energy wave, not even the tiniest movement, acts outside the parameters of physics. All of it follows precise laws of cause and effect in continual operation... the effect of the last cause becoming the cause of the next effect.

There isn't any evolution in the sense that evolutionists suggest. There might be definitions of the word "evolution" that make it simply cause and effect change. If there are, why don't evolutionists use it with the explanation of what they are doing? After all, cause and effect has been around forever that we know, and all scientist, evolution or otherwise, know and understand it.

So, why don't evolutionist explain their evidence using the cause and effect idea? Because the science fiction called evolution would be gone. And since they don't want it to be gone, they are perpetrating a hoax... the evolution hoax.

The evidence for evolution is ample, and encompasses several different fields of science

There is geographical evidence... different species of similar animals are separated by geographical divides (implying they evolved after the groups separated)

There is archaeological evidence... skulls and bones showing changes over time

There is genetic evidence... humans are 98%+ similar to chimpanzees

There is embryonic evidence... you can watch a human embryo change into amphibian and reptilian forms before becoming human

Humans have vestigial organs like the appendix



What evidence do you have for creationism? (your dusty old book is not evidence)

If you look at it that way, we won't really have any way to know for sure how our specie came about. We have to have spawn from something. And as of today, there are no other theories about where we came from that makes more sense than that of evolution.

That's like thinking that we will invent time viewing and see evolution in process. But we might.

Consider this excerpt from Andre Norton's Galactic Derelict (http://www.luminist.org/archives/):

Perhaps there's a monkey out there that setup a camera thousands of years ago with a time-lapse video recording of how they lost their fur, started using tools and increased brain mass.  When I get a hold of that SD card...I'll come looking for ya 

There is a difference between you having proof, and there not being any proof.

Lots of people don't have proof for lots of things that many others do have proof for. In this case, there isn't any proof.

There is no "apparentness" in this. Millions of years is all guess. Play with words if you want, but the fact is closer to all animals having been created with various levels of "domestication" built in. They have only become wild with the failure that sin brought into the world.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

Then it can not be considered domestication by the end of evolution. The fact is that all living things on our planet as a clockwork mechanism have its beginning and its end. Apparently what we have today, it is the end result of all that happened Millions of years before.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

What would be the purpose for a person to have horns or wings?  And would that be desirable for breeding?  I'm assuming it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need a practical answer

I would think that if survival and spreading seeds is the goal, as it seems to be for living things, then with natural selection, you'd want the most advantages to be able to survive.  The species would move towards breeding with those that have useful characteristics, and away from those that do not possess those useful characteristics, or be challenged with the competition of survival with less tools.

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

If you believe everything was created this way, then so be it.  Totally cool with me

Evolution affects people differently. If you do not have wings they do not grow, but if you have wings and you don't use them,it is likely they eventually will begin to disappear.

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

Monkeys? What? We have similarities to primates because we had a COMMON progenitor. That's the theory, not that we are originated from the "monkeys".

I hundred percent agree with you.  Theory is just a theory, that is why it is called evolution theory.  It was all based on their endless studies.  It is absurd that because there were parts of us that similar to the monkeys they said that we belong to them.