Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 45. (Read 108173 times)
At least evolution explains more details of our origin rather that church or any other religious institutions
Throughout my days school in school, one biology topic I have had problems with over the years is evolution, I find it very difficult to comprehend this concept by Charles Darwin because it does not look real.
We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up. - Just remember where we are. We are in a thread that either shows evolution to be a hoax, or shows it to NOT be a hoax.
Talk, alone, doesn't do anything. It is the substance of the talk - the proof - that counts.
1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine. - Why do you think that such arms are useless? T-Rex, and others like him, needed tiny arms to sort through the things he had just torn apart with his big legs and tail and jaws. The idea that small legs were useless is simply the idea of people who didn't exist with T-Rex to see how things really were. To show you that this whole point is stupid, consider how useful the small arms of a kangaroo are.
Useless for proving or disproving evolution.
2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans! - Why do you think they are missing links? So far, there are other reason for these things. One of the best creation ideas for these is simply for variety. But there could be many others when you consider the fall into sin, and the Bible record of angels (aliens) on the earth, tampering with our DNA.
As it stands, useless for proving or disproving evolution.
3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution. We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species. - The fossil record says you are wrong.
4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here! - Our proof of no random is the fact that all scientific operations can be performed with exactly the same results if done exactly the same way, every time. The problem with the word "random" in evolution is semantics.
The original word "random" was injected into early evolution theory at a time when scientists did not understand random very well. It was a time when a roll of the dice, or the toss of a coin, was considered to be random. We now understand that there are multitudes of forces that act on the dice and the coin... forces that determine exactly the way the dice or coin act... and none of it is really random.
Evolution theory simply has not upgraded its use of "random" to take into account these findings. This makes evolution theory vague at its best, because random is one of the most important "items" in determining ETE.
5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that! - Is nature smarter than our scientists? No! Nature is at least billions of times smarter than our scientists. All one need do is look at all the life in nature, along with its reproductive abilities.
What don't we have in "smart" nature? We don't have a source for the intelligence. This points to Intelligent Design, not intelligent nature, and certainly not evolution.
There you go, now answer mine!
Evolution is fact, there is no programming!
5) Also this argument is meaningless because it doesn't take in count time. Complexity can arise from very simple rules, if you also add millions and millions of years to that you get the complexity you see today without us being able to ''replicate it''. Scientists have developed countless cures for countless natural and unnatural diseases, scientists have developed planes,cars,rockets, what more do you really want to consider them ''smarter'' than nature?
Immune systems are designed to destroy differences. Even if we perceive a beneficial difference, immune systems are designed to destroy them whatever they are. The more the time, the greater chance that changes are destroyed by immune systems. Scientists are grasping at straws by trying to reverse the natural order when the say that long time gives better odds. The only better odds long time gives is better odds for immune systems to destroy changes. No evolution there.
Most of the stuff scientists have developed has an overall detrimental result for nature. So, even if the scientific developments could begin to approach nature's in complexity, they would be destructive, helping entropy, rather than building anything up into complexity.
If scientists weren't part of nature... if they were on the outside... their inventions might not affect gradual destruction on them as well as everyone/everything else. But because they are part of the nature that they are slowly destroying, they will be stopped by their own destructive inventions.
Nothing to do with proving evolution or not. No proof for evolution has been found. Evolution is still a hoax.
Find a natural change in the DNA over at least several thousand years, where critter A has this change, and critter B has the first change plus another, and critter C has both of these changes plus a third, but in every other way the critters are entirely the same. Do that, and you will have a tiny start towards evolution proof.
Then, amidst the countless C&E affects in nature, find even one pure random affect that is for sure a pure random affect. Add it to the DNA thing in the previous paragraph, and you will have a little bit more of a start towards proving evolution.
The thing that doesn't prove the existence of evolution is, thousands of words that shout that evolution is real. Proof is necessary.
Evolution is a hoax.
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?
500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!
Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.
The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.
The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.
There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.
The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.
We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up.
1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine.
2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans!
3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution. We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species.
4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here!
5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that!
There you go, now answer mine!
Evolution is fact, there is no programming!
5) Also this argument is meaningless because it doesn't take in count time. Complexity can arise from very simple rules, if you also add millions and millions of years to that you get the complexity you see today without us being able to ''replicate it''. Scientists have developed countless cures for countless natural and unnatural diseases, scientists have developed planes,cars,rockets, what more do you really want to consider them ''smarter'' than nature?
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?
500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!
Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.
The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.
The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.
There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.
The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.
We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up.
1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine.
2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans!
3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution. We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species.
4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here!
5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that!
There you go, now answer mine!
Evolution is fact, there is no programming!
I really disagree with this theory, I am not also a considerate to any perspective of anybody...
They knew Zeus was angry every time there was lightning. That is how much they knew of electricity.
Wow! Just wow! I knew you guys were treating evolution as a religion, in a religious way. But I didn't really expect one of you to actually come out and express it!
Evolution is a hoax, and you just showed that you agree.
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?
500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!
Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.
The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity.
The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution.
There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality.
The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof.
Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion.
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?
500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!
Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.
That's exactly the problem with these people. They are extremely skeptical about evolution, for example and yet accept other ridiculous claims so easily. He said numerous times that he knows the bible is real because ''eye witnesses'' rofl.
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution?
500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me!
Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not.
Those are not examples of evolution.
One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.
Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.
Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.
Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?
Why do you even keep replying? Is it to convince yourself that you are asking for proof and no one is giving it to you so you can tell yourself, yeah these guys don't have any evidence, evolution is truly a hoax. I can give you plenty of examples of beneficial mutations that are passed on through generations but then you will say the same things that you have been saying all the time, evolution fits better adaption (which is retarded) and mutations aren't random therefore evolution can't exist (which is not proven)
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.
I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution.
There are literally hundreds of examples listed for you in this thread do you really think its necessary for me to repeat it to you for the hundredth time?
It's like my old grand pappy used to say "you can lead a retard to the truth but you can't make him understand it!"
It's nothing personal I just think you're a moron, oh wait is that personal?
Those are not examples of evolution.
One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.
Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.
Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.
Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?
Why do you even keep replying? Is it to convince yourself that you are asking for proof and no one is giving it to you so you can tell yourself, yeah these guys don't have any evidence, evolution is truly a hoax. I can give you plenty of examples of beneficial mutations that are passed on through generations but then you will say the same things that you have been saying all the time, evolution fits better adaption (which is retarded) and mutations aren't random therefore evolution can't exist (which is not proven)
I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution.
There are literally hundreds of examples listed for you in this thread do you really think its necessary for me to repeat it to you for the hundredth time?
It's like my old grand pappy used to say "you can lead a retard to the truth but you can't make him understand it!"
It's nothing personal I just think you're a moron, oh wait is that personal?
Those are not examples of evolution.
One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.
Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.
Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.
Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?
I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution.
There are literally hundreds of examples listed for you in this thread do you really think its necessary for me to repeat it to you for the hundredth time?
It's like my old grand pappy used to say "you can lead a retard to the truth but you can't make him understand it!"
It's nothing personal I just think you're a moron, oh wait is that personal?
P.S. Do you really look like that fish in your avatar? 
No but his species was around till the great flood, see he looks like a fish but he can't swim. Noah forgot him and his mrs, they drowned. Check fuck fuck blo or whatever the fuck that is!
Btw just cause you can search a subject and a topic appears that doesn't make it right. When you search a topic and find repeatable, independently verifiable, predictable peer reviewed papers, experiments and discoveries then you can start to examine in detail a subject!
You know like you can fuck fuck blo flat earth and all kinds of stupid horse shit will come up, just like stupid horse shit about evolution being a hoax.
Reality is evolution is a fact keep listening to that sky daddy of yours one day you might hear a voice!$!!@#!!!! Don't be scared of it if it tells you that you are the true human hand of god!!!!!! Rain down fire on the unholy with your new super powers sky daddy will surely give you!
Oh and bring some proof of a young earth please!
Naw. He got of the boat... was too dumb to stay on board, and his wife stupidly trusted him.
I see you don't have any examples listed, that prove evolution. We can talk all day, but if you won't even look at the sites and the proof that evolution is impossible, what can anybody say? Except that you are aiming your nonsense at me for personal reasons.
Don't worry. God is in the habit of forgiving people who ask for forgiveness with sincerity. You can put down your stupid evolution squawk, and God will forgive you for ever having it. Just do it, and He will be glad to welcome you into our family... and give you eternal life in joy. I mean, why not, because, after all...
Evolution is a hoax.
P.S. Do you really look like that fish in your avatar?
No but his species was around till the great flood, see he looks like a fish but he can't swim. Noah forgot him and his mrs, they drowned. Check fuck fuck blo or whatever the fuck that is!
Btw just cause you can search a subject and a topic appears that doesn't make it right. When you search a topic and find repeatable, independently verifiable, predictable peer reviewed papers, experiments and discoveries then you can start to examine in detail a subject!
You know like you can fuck fuck blo flat earth and all kinds of stupid horse shit will come up, just like stupid horse shit about evolution being a hoax.
Reality is evolution is a fact keep listening to that sky daddy of yours one day you might hear a voice!$!!@#!!!! Don't be scared of it if it tells you that you are the true human hand of god!!!!!! Rain down fire on the unholy with your new super powers sky daddy will surely give you!
Oh and bring some proof of a young earth please!
Don't you realize that
Don't you realize that all of your arguments are literally retarded?
Face it evolution is a fact even if you're to brainwashed and stupid to understand it .
Well, thanks for showing us all that you don't have any facts to present. All you do is blab. Even Astargath presents more knowledge than you do.
The fact that there has not been any proof for evolution, and the fact that cause and effect are not explained by evolution theory evolution, are two big points against any evolution.
Check the DuckDuckGo search engine here - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evolution+is+impossible&t=hi&ia=web - to see how impossible evolution is. Sorry, but there aren't any rebuttals that stand against this stuff.
Evolution is a hoax.
P.S. Do you really look like that fish in your avatar?
Don't you realize that
Don't you realize that all of your arguments are literally retarded?
Face it evolution is a fact even if you're to brainwashed and stupid to understand it .
Internet search on "evolution is impossible." You will find a load of reasons why ETE is impossible, and the rebuttals to "evolution is impossible" are so faulty that they only rebut themselves.
What's the matter? Can't you even do an Internet search? Can't you think critically enough to see that evolution is impossible when it is explained to you why it is impossible?
Here's a challenge for you genius, why don't you google the earth is flat. You will find loads of really stupid reasons why the earth is flat and why the globe earth is impossible and rebuttals to "globe earth is impossible" are so faulty that they only rebut themselves. - Not sure what the challenge is here. Are you suggesting I test my ability to use search engines?
See Evolution is a fact backed by peer reviewed science, I mean you can get all your info from the part of the internet that is opinion based which would lead you to be able to believe the earth is flat and it was created ~6000 years ago OR you can get your information from peer reviewed, repeated, provable experiments and discoveries. - Peer review science works like this... an analogy. Scientists see 5 marbles in the pot. They focus on marble A. They consider aspects of two of the other marbles to determine aspects of marble A. They entirely ignore the other two marbles for no good reason. But those other two marbles, also, affect aspects of marble A.
In evolution theory evolution (ETE), two of the other important "marbles" that scientists are not focusing on in detail are:
1. Cause and effect with regard to what random really is in ETE;
2. The fact that adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change, fit nature better than they fit ETE, and are evidenced in visible super-abundance, while ETE has not been seen yet where it can be pointedly picked out, but rather is only guessed to exist.
Whats the matter? Can't you even do an Internet search? Can't think critically enough to see that your bible is wrong about everything, literally EVERYTHING especially young earth creationism, one of the stupidest of all the stupid religious ideas LOL! Why do you need some sky daddies approval for anything, think for yourself and not what some stupid fucking book from 2 millennia ago tells you.
Your only source of data is one stupid book, science on the other hand has decades of data and experiments and 100's of thousands of man hours, gee I wonder why evolution is a fact and not the bible lmfao.
Don't you realize that just because something is happening the way it is happening right now, that this doesn't mean that it always happened that way? There are multitudes of reasonable differences in the way the universe might have operated in the past, that would make it look billions of years old, when it might not be such... when it might only be 6,000 years old or so.
Essentially all of the dating of prehistoric times is based on the way things seem to work now. None of it is based on actually knowing if historical operations of nature in the past worked the same as they do today.
Standard science proves this out. A mere 300 years ago, scientists didn't have enough knowledge of plate tectonics to understand the great changes that have happened to the earth over the millennia. Now they understand this, and they have changed their outlook of some science because of this.
Consider that we do not know what went on in nature beyond about 5,000 years ago. This makes dating of things that seem to be over 6,000 years old, not known to be factually dated correctly... or even close.
The point is, as far as we know, we know that...
Evolution is a hoax.
I would not put it that hard. Belief are not stupid, nor the people behind them. They might be misplaced or not really sustainable, maybe even not thought fully though, but in the end belief are fundamental hard to change, cause you are arguing against something a person truly believe to be correct. I know sometimes is just trolling, reaction probing, or just for the sake of arguing, but such behavior is normally easy spotted, or you will gather it along the way.
But in the end; fundamental I think you are fully correct in your words. Just like to say so a bit more diplomatically.
I respectfully disagree with you! There is no reason to be polite to someone who puts belief above facts. In all honesty we should be ridiculing these retards spewing literal garbage. There is nothing to respect about a person stupid enough to believe in young earth creationism in 2018. It literally is as stupid as believing in a flat earth. They are too indoctrinated to take anything in and view it critically so being polite only makes them go harder. When I tell BADecker hes a retarded moron he ignores me and that shuts him up a bit!!!
Jump to: