Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 39. (Read 108057 times)

No, lies.

Definition of unpredictable
: not predictable: such as
a : not able to be known or declared in advance
unpredictable weather
b : tending to behave in ways that cannot be predicted
an unpredictable boss

That's what you claim, that science just hasn't figure it out, how do you know for sure?

''there is C&E in everything'' Well it seems like that's not true.

Well, thank you for the good night, sleep tight wishes.

Absolutely, evolution theory is a fact. I mean, it is written down in different ways in loads of books, it is talked about and taught in schools, and scientists use its ideas to do all kinds of experiments. Why state the obvious? Evolution theory absolutely is a fact? But nobody has shown that evolution is a fact. And what does relaxing or not relaxing have to do with it?

From New Scientist: Evolution myths: Evolution is random:
From Wikipedia: Natural selection:
Perhaps these writers don't know what they are talking about by using the word random. But it seems more likely that the word random is used throughout evolution ideas and evolution theory. Since it is used, it is important to define it in its use.

Roll the dice, flip a coin, or shoot some pool. Isn't the result often due to some randomness? Or is it only due to cause and effect? It's all due to cause and effect. The only random that exists is due to our inability to see/know/understand all the causes. In other words, random in science only comes from our weakness that denies us the ability to view all the causes.

For example. Science fact exists only when you can demonstrate something that is repeatable in science. And it has to be repeatable every time for the same set of circumstances. And it has to be shown that no other result can be derived from that set of circumstances.

So, how can we tell that evolution is factual? We can't duplicate all the forces involved, because we don't know them. But if we knew them, we still wouldn't even know how to measure all of them. But if we could measure all of them in the present, what does that have to do with the DNA measurements we would need from countless creatures over the thousands of years that evolution supposedly took place in the past? But even if we were able to take these DNA measurements from the distant past, we would still have to find a chain of DNA changes over thousands of years, that would provide a truly beneficial change in some creature by turning it into a better creature. If we don't find this stuff, we don't know that evolution happened. But even if we know that evolving does happen, we would need this stuff to show that evolution was a substantial reason for some of the creatures that we have. And if we found out that it was, we would still have to determine that there wasn't some form of creation or something else... just to say that evolution was how it all happened.

Not only have we not gotten to first base regarding things in the previous paragraph, but we haven't even decided where we are going to set up the baseball diamond.

To say that evolution is factual based on a bunch of creatures that look similar but different, and their fossils, without having the DNA to make this determination, is totally anti-science. Show us the proof for evolution, or stop saying that evolution is true, real, and factual. If you keep on saying that evolution is true, real, and factual, without having the stuff mentioned two paragraphs up, you are simply proving that you are not able to think, or are simply trusting what somebody else says, or are a liar.

Evolution is a hoax.

Since this is an evolution thread, let's not waste time on defending or proving the Bible.

Back 100 years ago, there were a lot of things that science figured out. Then some later scientists showed why those earlier scientists were wrong.

Not deterministic and unpredictable only means that we haven't figured it out. But 100 years from now, scientists may have all the answers as to why. Why what? Why there is C&E in everything, and no pure random... as we commonly see all over the place today.

Evolution is a hoax.

The fossil record doesn't show evolutionary change. If two fossils are almost the same, but are slightly different, how do you tell if they are or are not of the same family or grouping or species? After all, parents and their children are very different sometimes, right now, yet have no genetic difference that could be attributed to evolutionary change. Why not the fossil record? Suggesting evolution is guesswork.

The time frame is guesswork. Some of the scientists who wrote about how to tell the age of the earth or universe, even state that the time frame is a big guess... that it is only there so that we have a way to categorize things. We have no proof of billions of years. We can barely tell that things dated from 5,000 years ago are really 5,000 years old.


The fact that there is no evolution as stated in evolution theory, is not a theory. It is a fact that evolution is not a fact.

Why do creatures that have not evolved from each other, have to have started at the same time? Why could they not simply start at different times, caused by some force that we don't know about?

Why could creatures not have started at the same time? The fossil record merely shows that there were a lot more creatures and kinds of creatures in the ancient past. It says nothing about them having evolved from each other.



When you do a detailed look into the various ways that scientists determine the age of the universe, all of them have questionability attached. One of the major questions revolves around the idea that operations in the universe and on earth acted differently than we assume they did back then/whenever. We don't know for a fact how history was made back then. We can't tell the age of the universe that way, because we don't know for a fact if things acted like we assume they did.

Five thousand years is about all the farther we can go back, basing it on pottery and language and mitochondria. Carbon and other radioactive dating are flawed, both in how they works, and in our approach for using them.

Evolution is a hoax, because it is touted as factual, when it is not known to be factual.

What if you replace the word "random" with "God made it happen this way" and have the physical data to back up your conclusions?

Would that change your mind?

I’m in disagreement with that. You always say that there is no proof for Evolution and it can’t exist on account of C&E. If this is to be true, you will have to deal with the fossil record. Time is exceptional relevant to Evolution. Now while the fossil record in itself is not a direct proof that Evolution exists, the time frame they represent, is.

If your theory is to be true, of no Evolution, all these species, now as bones in the ground, must have started out at the same time. They certainly did not evolve from each other that you are sure of. So either there is many starts or they all started at the same time?

I can hardly find a more relevant question to an, Evolution is a hoax, thread. Time is a fundamental in Evolutionary theory, and if you are unable to explain how Dinosaurs relate to Human in the time frame, your theory has no merit whatsoever.

later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random).

Actually it's pretty clear, explained 3 different ways. Not deterministic, unpredictable and random, if you don't know what it means, use a dictionary

What if you replace the word "random" with "shit just happens" or better yet "God intended it to happen this way".  Would that change your conclusions about evolution?

When you read the article, science theory is mentioned at least several times. It is the nature of science theory to be a best science found up to that time. So, we don't know that pure random exists.

The idea of "unpredictable" means that they haven't been able to predict something with the knowledge and equipment that they have.

The "random" mentioned above isn't clear enough to know whether or not it is pure random, or random as used 200 years ago.

Quantum Mechanics, by its nature, can be used to find whatever answer you are looking for, if you work at it hard enough. This means that if pure random was determined by QM, the opposite of it could be determined as well.

This puts us right back where we were were before... countless numbers of proven C&E, but not one proven instance of pure random. This means that evolution is questionable, at best - or it would be if it hadn't been prove impossible by a bunch of other science. Since evolution is touted as fact when it is not known to be factual...

Evolution is a hoax.

No, not bla bla,

''During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wave function into another, later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[39][40]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Unless you think quantum mechanics is also a hoax, at this point all science will be!!

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Do you mean that somebody actually knows the cause(s)? Prove it.

'' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it.

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

But none of these things show us evolution into a new kind of creature. In addition, creating settings for change in a petri dish, is creating, not evolving.


This is exactly the point. Science theory exists to pass on ideas, not to prove that something is factual. Once in a while some science theory is tested in just the right way, and is found to be fact... which takes it out of the realm of science theory.

Evolution theory is just like that. Evolution theory takes a bunch of facts about nature, and tries to say that evolution is real. By the definition of science theory, evolution is real in science theory only... not in the reality of nature. So far, evolution is in the realm of science theory. It isn't a fact of nature. So, why is it touted as being a fact of nature?



Science still can't tell the difference between adaptation and "programmed" change in like-begets-like. However, if they DID find something that really could be classified as evolution in some petri dish, there is STILL no way to extrapolate backwards into the fossil record to show which of the creatures were evolving and which were not. The two basic reasons why evolution is not proven are: 1) no DNA to check it out the fossil record for sure; 2) C&E means programming, which means that everything was set up to act as it does, and evolution theory is exceptionally hazy on this reality.

The fact that there isn't any pure random is simply the bottom line "thing" that is wrong with evolution theory. There are many things wrong with evolution. If you Google "impossible evolution," among the links you will find a lot of evolution sites that state why the impossible idea has been debunked. If you go through the many sites that explain why impossible evolution is debunked, they all state unknown facts for evolution. In other words, they all fail in their debunking of the fact that evolution is impossible.

In simple form, what happens is something like this. The impossible site says that evolution couldn't have happened because of some fact of nature that doesn't fit evolution. The evolution site that attempts to debunk this says that the impossible site is wrong, because we know that evolution is real. Certainly the details of the various sites go much deeper than this simple example, but they all act like this in essence.


As far as religious beliefs, I am not relying on them for the scientific evaluations I show. My religious beliefs only prompted me to figure out who was wrong. What is wrong with the standard age timeline is the fact that we don't know the physics of the earth back beyond about 5,000 years ago, the time the Sumerians and the Bible set for the Great Flood of Noah's day. We can guess that things went on smoothly, backwards beyond the 5,000 years, but we don't know it. In fact, we don't know a lot of things a lot closer to us than 5,000 years.

Why would I try to make waves by saying that we don't know about the physics before 5,000 years ago? It's not to make waves. Rather, it's to simply be honest. All the ideas of what went on prior to 5,000 years ago, are based on things that we see today, and our methods of attempting backwards extrapolation. We don't know what facts about how things worked in the ancient past we are missing in our backward extrapolation. We don't really have a clue that anything is correct in the standard age of the earth calculations back beyond 5,000 years. We are guessing and hoping that things in nature operated back then as they do today, so we CAN make accurate calculations. But we don't know. This means that the idea of billions of years is simply unknown to be factual.


One of the basic reasons that you bring up my religious ideas, is that you KNOW that you don't have any real facts for evolution. Knowing this, you also know that much of your trust in the idea of evolution, is similar to religion. So, you try to bring me into the idea of religion. But evolution theory is based in idea on science. It isn't really based on science, of course. Why not? Because much of evolution theory is guesswork regarding reality. This is shown in the fact that adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change fit so-called evolution happenings at least as good as the evolution idea fits them. So, which is right?

We see and recognize all kinds of adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that has nothing to do with evolution. So, why would we think that some of the adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that we see is really evolution because it looks like evolution theory a little? We don't have any reason for doing this.

All you are doing by bringing religion into it is showing that evolution is a religion. How and why? Because if you had anything that was solidly evolution, you would be focusing on that rather than the religion idea.

The absolute only reason why evolution is as popular as it is, is because of the ignorance of people over the decades to see that their findings are not evolution, and the continual hollering of many people, "evolution, evolution, evolution," when they don't know that there is any evolution. Since they don't know evolution is real, but talk like it is real...

Evolution is a hoax.

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^