Pages:
Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 38. (Read 108173 times)

legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 13, 2018, 11:11:52 AM

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.

Well, now that we have C&E settled, we can go on to the faulty use of "random" in evolution theory, which shows that evolution theory is wrong.

Then we still need to find some proof of evolution... somewhere.

And finally, we need to dispel all those "things" that show that evolution is impossible.

If we can do all this, we might have a start at proving evolution as a possible theme of nature.

Then comes the hard part, proving evolution is a main theme of nature.

Cool

Actually Zeus left it this way, he caused the universe and then left, he doesn't act anymore, therefore evolution is real.

That's exactly the thing we are talking about. Let's see the proof for evolution. We have countless examples of proof for adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. Show us the proof that even one of them is evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
member
Activity: 256
Merit: 36
October 12, 2018, 06:28:38 PM
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
Though others says that evolution of people exist from a monkey we can really tell if the fossils found in several studies that they are a monkeys. But maybe they are only monkey like but not as like much as a monkey. Having a similarities to their lifestyle and kind of living is one of the reasons why there's a lot who believe that we came from our ancestors, the monkeys
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
October 12, 2018, 05:34:35 PM

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.

Well, now that we have C&E settled, we can go on to the faulty use of "random" in evolution theory, which shows that evolution theory is wrong.

Then we still need to find some proof of evolution... somewhere.

And finally, we need to dispel all those "things" that show that evolution is impossible.

If we can do all this, we might have a start at proving evolution as a possible theme of nature.

Then comes the hard part, proving evolution is a main theme of nature.

Cool

Actually Zeus left it this way, he caused the universe and then left, he doesn't act anymore, therefore evolution is real.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 04:25:49 PM

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.

Well, now that we have C&E settled, we can go on to the faulty use of "random" in evolution theory, which shows that evolution theory is wrong.

Then we still need to find some proof of evolution... somewhere.

And finally, we need to dispel all those "things" that show that evolution is impossible.

If we can do all this, we might have a start at proving evolution as a possible theme of nature.

Then comes the hard part, proving evolution is a main theme of nature.

Cool

I would not worry about the evolution if I were you.  You'll never understand it.

Concentrate on tying your shoes.

God used C&E to teach me how to tie my shoes. But I can't worry about evolution, because there isn't any evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 04:02:31 PM

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.

Well, now that we have C&E settled, we can go on to the faulty use of "random" in evolution theory, which shows that evolution theory is wrong.

Then we still need to find some proof of evolution... somewhere.

And finally, we need to dispel all those "things" that show that evolution is impossible.

If we can do all this, we might have a start at proving evolution as a possible theme of nature.

Then comes the hard part, proving evolution is a main theme of nature.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 12, 2018, 10:08:11 AM
XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

Honestly, he basically proves evolution to be true by his own argument...

He says everything is based on cause and effect (ergo, god does not do anything after the big bang)

This is exactly like evolution... there is no difference... everything is based on the initial conditions and evolved naturally without interference from any supernatural intervention

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is the word random... which, as anyone knows, doesn't really exist... there is no such thing as a random number... we (scientists) only call it random because it is not possible to calculate with any degree of certainty (literally impossible due to the uncertainty principle)... anything impossible to calculate is considered random, because that's the definition of random...

God made something like evolution, He did it through cause and effect

Thanks for proving my point

Also, If EVERY effect has a cause... who caused god?

Welcome to the "Problem of the creator of God"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

Quote
The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.

He's like an open book... I see how he replies to every post I make within 5-10 minutes... except for ones like this... he won't respond to this one at all because he knows he cant, and doesn't want to continue this conversation any further because he is scared of what he might find
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
October 12, 2018, 09:33:48 AM
XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

Honestly, he basically proves evolution to be true by his own argument...

He says everything is based on cause and effect (ergo, god does not do anything after the big bang)

This is exactly like evolution... there is no difference... everything is based on the initial conditions and evolved naturally without interference from any supernatural intervention

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is the word random... which, as anyone knows, doesn't really exist... there is no such thing as a random number... we (scientists) only call it random because it is not possible to calculate with any degree of certainty (literally impossible due to the uncertainty principle)... anything impossible to calculate is considered random, because that's the definition of random...

God made something like evolution, He did it through cause and effect

Thanks for proving my point

Also, If EVERY effect has a cause... who caused god?

Welcome to the "Problem of the creator of God"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

Quote
The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.

It was actually Zeus who made everything through cause and effect, he planted the idea of a christian god into badecker's mind.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 12, 2018, 09:13:13 AM
XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

Honestly, he basically proves evolution to be true by his own argument...

He says everything is based on cause and effect (ergo, god does not do anything after the big bang)

This is exactly like evolution... there is no difference... everything is based on the initial conditions and evolved naturally without interference from any supernatural intervention

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is the word random... which, as anyone knows, doesn't really exist... there is no such thing as a random number... we (scientists) only call it random because it is not possible to calculate with any degree of certainty (literally impossible due to the uncertainty principle)... anything impossible to calculate is considered random, because that's the definition of random...

God made something like evolution, He did it through cause and effect

Thanks for proving my point

Also, If EVERY effect has a cause... who caused god?

Welcome to the "Problem of the creator of God"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

Quote
The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 09:04:12 AM
XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

Honestly, he basically proves evolution to be true by his own argument...

He says everything is based on cause and effect (ergo, god does not do anything after the big bang)

This is exactly like evolution... there is no difference... everything is based on the initial conditions and evolved naturally without interference from any supernatural intervention

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is the word random... which, as anyone knows, doesn't really exist... there is no such thing as a random number... we (scientists) only call it random because it is not possible to calculate with any degree of certainty (literally impossible due to the uncertainty principle)... anything impossible to calculate is considered random, because that's the definition of random...

Actually, this proves the greatness of God. Even if God made something like evolution, He did it through cause and effect. God's C&E works with with countless numbers of subatomic particles and energies, all according to the laws of physics, to produce things like beauty and aesthetics and intelligence. But mankind can only control C&E reactions over a few levels on a pool table.

Since it is all C&E, evolution theory doesn't fit in the area of random.

Evolution is a complete hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 12, 2018, 08:58:45 AM
XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

He basically proves evolution to be true by his own argument...

He says everything is based on cause and effect (ergo, god does not do anything after the big bang)

This is exactly like evolution... there is no difference... everything is based on the initial conditions and evolved naturally without interference from any supernatural intervention

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is the word random... which, as anyone knows, doesn't really exist... there is no such thing as a random number... we (scientists) only call it random because it is not possible to calculate with any degree of certainty (literally impossible due to the uncertainty principle)... anything impossible to calculate is considered random, because that's the definition of random...
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 08:56:46 AM

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_3rd_Law
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law

Where does it say that everything has a cause? Point it out to me.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

"... every ..."

Cool

XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?

LOL! Action >>> reaction... cause >>> effect. Did you ever think of going to school? Cheesy

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
October 12, 2018, 08:29:34 AM

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_3rd_Law
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law

Where does it say that everything has a cause? Point it out to me.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

"... every ..."

Cool

XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be?
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 08:14:34 AM

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_3rd_Law
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law

Where does it say that everything has a cause? Point it out to me.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

"... every ..."

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 12, 2018, 08:11:32 AM

Hmm, what is the alternative? Let’s assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think it’s irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but it’s not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.

Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more “soft” species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.

These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?


Start a thread something like, "Alternatives to Evolution."

Evolution is not true because, among many other things, there is no random in nature. Everything operates through cause and effect. There are no random mutations. We might think that there are because of our inability to see most causes, directly. But science shows us more and more all the time that there are causes for everything.

You have a bunch of questions, many of which we don't have answers to, and never will until we can make a time viewer that can see into the past. All those questions would be there if evolution was real. The point isn't those questions. The point is that evolution is a hoax because we know reasons why it can't be real.

But, the biggest reason why evolution is a hoax is that we don't have even one proof for it, yet it is touted as being real.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
October 12, 2018, 07:23:51 AM

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_3rd_Law
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law

Where does it say that everything has a cause? Point it out to me.
full member
Activity: 301
Merit: 103
October 12, 2018, 02:03:24 AM

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

You keep on trying to convert this thread into a religious topic. You talk about a Christian religious consensus. You want me to start believing a religious thing that didn't happen - evolution.

What are you so afraid of that you are unwilling to admit that there is no science that shows that evolution is a fact? I mean, that is what scientists are looking for - facts - even when they are deluded into mistaking theories for facts.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Hmm, what is the alternative? Let’s assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think it’s irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but it’s not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.

Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more “soft” species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.

These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 11, 2018, 02:05:25 PM

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
October 11, 2018, 01:48:25 PM

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.

Cool

First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought.

''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.''

There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it.

Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.

C&E is used in all scientific observation and experimentation.

Nobody has found even one pure random event.

There are probably many of natural or scientific laws that have not been formulated into verbal verbal or written laws simply because they are obvious. It took the apple bouncing off Newton's head to get him to think in the direction of formulating his law of universal gravitation.

The idea that radioactive decay or virtual particles may not have a direct C&E action as other things do, but they do indeed have at least an indirect C&E operation. If nowhere else, the C&E that affects them is the making of the universe. Language that avoids the C&E is simply political talk, if it is not simply ideas.

What does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax? You are grasping at straws.

Cool

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 11, 2018, 12:12:33 PM

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

You keep on trying to convert this thread into a religious topic. You talk about a Christian religious consensus. You want me to start believing a religious thing that didn't happen - evolution.

What are you so afraid of that you are unwilling to admit that there is no science that shows that evolution is a fact? I mean, that is what scientists are looking for - facts - even when they are deluded into mistaking theories for facts.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 11, 2018, 12:04:34 PM
3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)


Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

It is based on Nobel Prize people having been convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it is a successful and repeatable experiment which shows how evolution can be used to create new medicinal drugs at an exponentially increased rate.

It is a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize, with more than enough evidence to prove it happened

That's the thing about science... it works whether or not you believe in it

sorry, not sorry

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

Even you would have to admit there must be an abundance of evidence in order to convince more than half of Christians to believe in evolution over what their bible says... right?
Pages:
Jump to: