no way monkey has evolved to human. if you know about DNA n you see it, you can see different by human and monkey
Almost all people who know DNA as biologists, botanists and more agree with evolution. 
Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 24. (Read 108057 times)
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not believe in this theory.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not think it's true.
But if we assume it may be because it is an incomplete hypothesis
We may be other monkeys.
All of this species has evolved to humans
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not believe in this theory.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not think it's true.
But if we assume it may be because it is an incomplete hypothesis
We may be other monkeys.
All of this species has evolved to humans
If you base it on the argument of why are there still monkeys today, then it should also apply to why aren't there any new species being created out of nothing? Curiously, it seems that we don't have any new magically created being out of someone's abdomen. If you compare the two versions of how we came to be, there seems to be no actual proof that we all came from the same parent. And that makes our entire race incestous if ever right?
Every day humans prove evolution, by mating two animals and creating a new one.
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The simple word "evolution" can be applied to all kinds of things. But evolution theory evolution (ETE) can't be shown to be true until there is proof that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal over thousands of years.
The only way we presently know how to do this accurately is through DNA sampling. But you can't sample DNA from animals that haven't existed for thousands of years without a time machine to go back there to get samples.
Scientists know this, yet they emphatically state that ETE is true and real when they know that they don't really know such. This is the thing that turns evolution into a hoax.
''without a time machine to go back there to get samples.'' And yet you think it's perfectly ok to claim god and jesus existed and were down here thousands of years ago even though there is 0 proof of it?
Every day humans prove evolution, by mating two animals and creating a new one.
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The simple word "evolution" can be applied to all kinds of things. But evolution theory evolution (ETE) can't be shown to be true until there is proof that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal over thousands of years.
The only way we presently know how to do this accurately is through DNA sampling. But you can't sample DNA from animals that haven't existed for thousands of years without a time machine to go back there to get samples.
Scientists know this, yet they emphatically state that ETE is true and real when they know that they don't really know such. This is the thing that turns evolution into a hoax.
The theory of Evolution is based on the faith of the missing link, which is still missing, but real enough to make Evolution a true science, not a religion, created on something no one can see or prove...
Every day humans prove evolution, by mating two animals and creating a new one.
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The simple word "evolution" can be applied to all kinds of things. But evolution theory evolution (ETE) can't be shown to be true until there is proof that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal over thousands of years.
The only way we presently know how to do this accurately is through DNA sampling. But you can't sample DNA from animals that haven't existed for thousands of years without a time machine to go back there to get samples.
Scientists know this, yet they emphatically state that ETE is true and real when they know that they don't really know such. This is the thing that turns evolution into a hoax.
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not believe in this theory.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I do not think it's true.
But if we assume it may be because it is an incomplete hypothesis
We may be other monkeys.
All of this species has evolved to humans
Every day humans prove evolution, by mating two animals and creating a new one.
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
The Creation hoax can't prove anything .
''fiction story that the scientific method is continually proving more incorrect, the longer it is investigated scientifically.'' And you got to this conclusion how exactly when virtually all scientists accept it?
A reasonably simple and complete answer to your question exists here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50459934.
Note that it is not known that virtually all scientists accept evolution from a standpoint of close examination. Many scientist simply state that they accept evolution, basing their statement on the idea that other scientists are accurate in their evolution studies, or that the media wouldn't lie. In addition, it's not known that the majority of scientists even state that they accept evolution.
So, are you going to post some faulty media that suggests that scientists accept evolution as you say? Such is the way that rumors keep on going. prove your media isn't lies. Do you have real scientific studies done on the opinions and statements of scientists?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/ (''Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case.'')
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-4-evolution-and-perceptions-of-scientific-consensus/
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design
https://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904
It is quite known that almost all scientists accept evolution, you don't even need the studies, that exist, to know this, you can watch any program, any tv show, anything really that has scientists or some science in it and you will see all of them accept evolution.
''fiction story that the scientific method is continually proving more incorrect, the longer it is investigated scientifically.'' And you got to this conclusion how exactly when virtually all scientists accept it?
A reasonably simple and complete answer to your question exists here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50459934.
Note that it is not known that virtually all scientists accept evolution from a standpoint of close examination. Many scientist simply state that they accept evolution, basing their statement on the idea that other scientists are accurate in their evolution studies, or that the media wouldn't lie. In addition, it's not known that the majority of scientists even state that they accept evolution.
So, are you going to post some faulty media that suggests that scientists accept evolution as you say? Such is the way that rumors keep on going. prove your media isn't lies. Do you have real scientific studies done on the opinions and statements of scientists?
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
''go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.'' Well and how do you ''investigate'' something exactly, badecker, give me an exact method to investigate something and to claim it's 100% a fact, what's your method? What did you use to say adaption is a fact? Why do you consider it a fact?
Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized that you skipped scientific investigation class in school.
So... the scientific method which you think doesn't demonstrate evolution is real?
Finally you are close to the truth. The scientific method doesn't prove evolution. Rather, evolution is merely a science fiction story that the scientific method is continually proving more incorrect, the longer it is investigated scientifically.
''fiction story that the scientific method is continually proving more incorrect, the longer it is investigated scientifically.'' And you got to this conclusion how exactly when virtually all scientists accept it?
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
''go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.'' Well and how do you ''investigate'' something exactly, badecker, give me an exact method to investigate something and to claim it's 100% a fact, what's your method? What did you use to say adaption is a fact? Why do you consider it a fact?
Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized that you skipped scientific investigation class in school.
So... the scientific method which you think doesn't demonstrate evolution is real?
Finally you are close to the truth. The scientific method doesn't prove evolution. Rather, evolution is merely a science fiction story that the scientific method is continually proving more incorrect, the longer it is investigated scientifically.
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
''go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.'' Well and how do you ''investigate'' something exactly, badecker, give me an exact method to investigate something and to claim it's 100% a fact, what's your method? What did you use to say adaption is a fact? Why do you consider it a fact?
Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized that you skipped scientific investigation class in school.
So... the scientific method which you think doesn't demonstrate evolution is real?
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
''go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.'' Well and how do you ''investigate'' something exactly, badecker, give me an exact method to investigate something and to claim it's 100% a fact, what's your method? What did you use to say adaption is a fact? Why do you consider it a fact?
Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized that you skipped scientific investigation class in school.
Just for you, I'll repeat it again. What factually exists is adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like. Evolution theory evolution has not been proven.
The funny thing is that loads of evolution thinkers who talk about evolution come right out and admit that there isn't any real evidence for evolution. Of course, they hide these kinds of statements... like at the end of their books.
This is the thing that makes evolution into the hoax that it is... not that a bunch of evolutionists are trying to find some proof of it.
No, how do you know those factually exist and you are not wrong? You think adaption is a fact, explain why.
An adaptation is a physical or behavioral characteristic that has developed to allow an organism to better survive in its environment. Adaptations are the result of evolution and may occur when a gene mutates, or changes by accident. That mutation causes the organism to better survive and reproduce, and it passes on that trait to its offspring. It can take many generations to develop an adaptation.
Note that the definition of evolution is not given in the above quote. This means that the standard definition is to be used. But the standard definition is wrong, because we have no proof of even one animal or plant ever changing into another.
Note, also, that we don't really know of any beneficial mutations. All the mutations that are clearly not beneficial are obvious. But those that look beneficial may have long-term detrimental effects. This means that we don't even know if any mutations are beneficial.
This leaves the development part of the the adaptation description. Development is something that is essentially already programmed in the DNA. Adaptation simply makes certain programming more prevalent, so that the creature involved can adapt to new surroundings or climate, etc.
Seems to me that you don't know about some of the more simple facts of life.
Right but how do you know adaption is a fact?
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
''go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.'' Well and how do you ''investigate'' something exactly, badecker, give me an exact method to investigate something and to claim it's 100% a fact, what's your method? What did you use to say adaption is a fact? Why do you consider it a fact?
Just for you, I'll repeat it again. What factually exists is adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like. Evolution theory evolution has not been proven.
The funny thing is that loads of evolution thinkers who talk about evolution come right out and admit that there isn't any real evidence for evolution. Of course, they hide these kinds of statements... like at the end of their books.
This is the thing that makes evolution into the hoax that it is... not that a bunch of evolutionists are trying to find some proof of it.
No, how do you know those factually exist and you are not wrong? You think adaption is a fact, explain why.
An adaptation is a physical or behavioral characteristic that has developed to allow an organism to better survive in its environment. Adaptations are the result of evolution and may occur when a gene mutates, or changes by accident. That mutation causes the organism to better survive and reproduce, and it passes on that trait to its offspring. It can take many generations to develop an adaptation.
Note that the definition of evolution is not given in the above quote. This means that the standard definition is to be used. But the standard definition is wrong, because we have no proof of even one animal or plant ever changing into another.
Note, also, that we don't really know of any beneficial mutations. All the mutations that are clearly not beneficial are obvious. But those that look beneficial may have long-term detrimental effects. This means that we don't even know if any mutations are beneficial.
This leaves the development part of the the adaptation description. Development is something that is essentially already programmed in the DNA. Adaptation simply makes certain programming more prevalent, so that the creature involved can adapt to new surroundings or climate, etc.
Seems to me that you don't know about some of the more simple facts of life.
Right but how do you know adaption is a fact?
If the sum total of adaptation lies in evolution, it isn't a fact. But since it doesn't, go and investigate it so that you can tell me if it is fact or not.
Since evolution is not a fact, but it is portrayed as fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
Just for you, I'll repeat it again. What factually exists is adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like. Evolution theory evolution has not been proven.
The funny thing is that loads of evolution thinkers who talk about evolution come right out and admit that there isn't any real evidence for evolution. Of course, they hide these kinds of statements... like at the end of their books.
This is the thing that makes evolution into the hoax that it is... not that a bunch of evolutionists are trying to find some proof of it.
No, how do you know those factually exist and you are not wrong? You think adaption is a fact, explain why.
An adaptation is a physical or behavioral characteristic that has developed to allow an organism to better survive in its environment. Adaptations are the result of evolution and may occur when a gene mutates, or changes by accident. That mutation causes the organism to better survive and reproduce, and it passes on that trait to its offspring. It can take many generations to develop an adaptation.
Note that the definition of evolution is not given in the above quote. This means that the standard definition is to be used. But the standard definition is wrong, because we have no proof of even one animal or plant ever changing into another.
Note, also, that we don't really know of any beneficial mutations. All the mutations that are clearly not beneficial are obvious. But those that look beneficial may have long-term detrimental effects. This means that we don't even know if any mutations are beneficial.
This leaves the development part of the the adaptation description. Development is something that is essentially already programmed in the DNA. Adaptation simply makes certain programming more prevalent, so that the creature involved can adapt to new surroundings or climate, etc.
Seems to me that you don't know about some of the more simple facts of life.
Right but how do you know adaption is a fact?
Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact,
Evolution and gravity are scientific theorys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) you are confusing it with the word hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)
To say that evolution and gravity are theories is to say that they are not known to exist factually.
Gravity exists. People use it all the time everyday.
Evolution doesn't exist that we know of.
Thank you for your admonition. Do you ever follow your own admonition, yourself?
Just for you, I'll repeat it again. What factually exists is adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like. Evolution theory evolution has not been proven.
The funny thing is that loads of evolution thinkers who talk about evolution come right out and admit that there isn't any real evidence for evolution. Of course, they hide these kinds of statements... like at the end of their books.
This is the thing that makes evolution into the hoax that it is... not that a bunch of evolutionists are trying to find some proof of it.
No, how do you know those factually exist and you are not wrong? You think adaption is a fact, explain why.
An adaptation is a physical or behavioral characteristic that has developed to allow an organism to better survive in its environment. Adaptations are the result of evolution and may occur when a gene mutates, or changes by accident. That mutation causes the organism to better survive and reproduce, and it passes on that trait to its offspring. It can take many generations to develop an adaptation.
Note that the definition of evolution is not given in the above quote. This means that the standard definition is to be used. But the standard definition is wrong, because we have no proof of even one animal or plant ever changing into another.
Note, also, that we don't really know of any beneficial mutations. All the mutations that are clearly not beneficial are obvious. But those that look beneficial may have long-term detrimental effects. This means that we don't even know if any mutations are beneficial.
This leaves the development part of the the adaptation description. Development is something that is essentially already programmed in the DNA. Adaptation simply makes certain programming more prevalent, so that the creature involved can adapt to new surroundings or climate, etc.
Seems to me that you don't know about some of the more simple facts of life.
Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact,
Evolution and gravity are scientific theorys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) you are confusing it with the word hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)
To say that evolution and gravity are theories is to say that they are not known to exist factually.
Gravity exists. People use it all the time everyday.
Evolution doesn't exist that we know of.
What does exist factually, badecker?
Just for you, I'll repeat it again. What factually exists is adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like. Evolution theory evolution has not been proven.
The funny thing is that loads of evolution thinkers who talk about evolution come right out and admit that there isn't any real evidence for evolution. Of course, they hide these kinds of statements... like at the end of their books.
This is the thing that makes evolution into the hoax that it is... not that a bunch of evolutionists are trying to find some proof of it.
No, how do you know those factually exist and you are not wrong? You think adaption is a fact, explain why.
Jump to: