Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 49. (Read 108173 times)

Why do you think that I want to throw theories out? Since evolution is proven to not exist, its theory is proven ridiculous.

Somehow you want to drop the idea of C&E, just to let impossible evolution exist. Even evolution theory doesn't do that.

Entropy is in existence all around us. It is obvious. Thinking that it is not, is simply denying reality. Entropy has to do with devolution, not evolution.

In theory, adaptation might be part of evolution. But the whole point is, can evolution be a part of adaptation. Why? Because adaptation is obvious, but evolution isn't.

The simplicity of the evolution idea isn't what makes it real. What would make it real would be some proof for evolution found in the things that are real. So far, no proof... just a bunch of "yelling" that evolution is real.

Did you never see a scientist, or a group of scientists, that made one or more mistakes? You can find hundreds of them simply regarding evolution over the last hundred years. At the same time, there were many other scientists that recognized the mistakes, almost immediately. That's why the mistakes were found out, and those mistaken scientists put to shame.

It's time to put the whole idea of evolution to bed. There isn't any ETE. It's been proven wrong and impossible so many times that anybody who looks can easily see that it doesn't exist.

Now, I know it is difficult for anybody to put down his pet religion. But state evolution as it is (if you are honest), a religion. Why continue to distract people with evolution foolishness? Rather, find out what the truth really is.

Evolution is a hoax.

What are you saying? The theories certainly exist. The point isn't the existence of the theories. Copies of the theories exist all over the place.

The point is that the main hypotheses that the theories are trying to explain, are the things that nobody knows factually exist. And comparing the factualness of QT with factualness of ET is like comparing apples and mountains. They can't be compared in the same way, because they are extremely different.

A simple example is the difference between gravity and gravity theory. Everybody knows that gravity exists, because we all use it every day. So, gravity theory is not trying to explain the existence of gravity. Rather, gravity theory is trying to explain how gravity works. Nobody knows that gravity theory is explaining it right. But the existence of gravity, itself, is obvious. The existence of gravity theory is obvious. But how factual gravity theory is, is unknown.

The difference with evolution is that nobody knows that evolution exists. Why not? Because, unlike gravity which is in use all over by average people every day, we don't know by simple observation if we are seeing evolution or not. The things we can easily see are that adaptation and like-begets-like exist all over the place.

Evolution theory exists. But unlike gravity theory explaining gravity, evolution theory has to explain that evolution exists. Gravity theory doesn't have to explain that gravity exists because gravity is obvious. Evolution isn't obvious because the things that might suggest that evolution is obvious are explained much better and easier by adaptation and like-begets-like. So far, nothing has proven that evolution is factual.


In police forensics, police use science to prove this or that about a crime. The police forensics scientist gets on the stand and swears that something happened factually, because forensics science facts are real. Nobody gets on the stand and testifies that the things of evolution are fact in an evolution way, because nobody knows that evolution exists. If they get on the stand and say that according to evolution theory such and such are evolution facts, all they are doing is stating that such and such may be changed right along with evolution theory... possibly in the next minute, if evolution theory changes then. Forensics is real fact; evolution is not.

What is evolution like? It is like religion. A Bible scholar might get on the stand and say that something is for-a-fact recorded in the Bible. But unless there is corroborating evidence in the real world, he doesn't say that this "something" is a fact that makes the Bible factually real.

Same with evolution. An evolution scientist might get on the stand and say that something is for-a-fact written in evolution theory. But unless there is corroborating evidence in the real world, he doesn't say that this "something" is a fact that makes evolution factually real. Why not? Two reasons. One, there are too many unknowns regarding whether it is evolution, or adaptation or like-begets-like. Two, there are too many basic things like cause and effect, which totally eliminate the possibility of evolution according to any evolution theory we can dream up.


In other words, you don't have any facts that evolution is real. And since there are facts that show that it can't be real, those who promote evolution are at the best, misguided, but at the worst, hoaxers.

Evolution is a hoax.

When you piss into the wind, don't be surprised if you get wet

I wouldn't mind debating someone who is closed minded if he wasn't making up shit constantly. Badecker simply wants us to throw out the window almost all scientific theories because he says so. Fuck quantum physics, fuck evolution theory, C&E means we are programmed but somehow science hasn't realized this yet, don't worry, badecker knows better. Entropy? After explaining how entropy does not violate evolution theory, do you think badecker accepted defeat? Of course not, he keeps rambling about the same plain wrong argument. I guess he thinks all scientists that have worked and accepted evolution missed that evolution can't exist with entropy or something. No, badecker, they didn't miss it, they know entropy does not make evolution impossible just like your other arguments which were also debunked several times. Yelling adaption like a lunatic isn't an argument, adaption is part of evolution and when that adaption is passed onto future generations, that specific animal/specie is evolving, it's truly a simple concept deep down and yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it.

I don't see any point debating someone who is closed minded and simply makes up nonsense... I'm surprised anyone posts in this thread besides BADLogic

Just block/ignore him and move on with your life like the rest of us

''There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution.'' Claiming there is no proof for quantum theory or evolution theory shows how you argue. I give you evidence and facts, you argue with feelings and beliefs, even quoting the bible. If you think you are smarter than all scientists, go ahead and prove them all wrong, no point in arguing any further.

Actually, if an electron bumped the next electron a little to the left of where it bumped it, the second would bump the third a little differently. but the reason the first bumped exactly where it did was, it was bumped in exactly the way it was bumped. If it was bumped differently, then it would bump differently.

We see nothing else in nature or the universe. Cause and effect act exactly as they were programmed to act - EXACTLY - with nothing (like random) making a difference in the way they acted. The whole thing was programmed.

Why do you think that some tremendous numbers of cause and effect are too many to keep them from being pure random? Just because computer programmers work like crazy to make computer programs work right, why do you think that there can't be an Intelligence that is farther above us than we are above a microbe? Just because you feel like thinking that way?

Everything is programmed. Since this is against evolution theory...

Evolution is a hoax.

That's what you call breeding, even if it is done by nature.

Evolution is a hoax.

Who needs evidence for facts?

Thank you for backing me up. Evolution is a theory - not known to be factual, but believed to be by many - just as Quantum Theory is not known to be fact.

Science theories come and go and are changed on a daily basis. Why? Because they are known to be fact? Wake up! Scientific theories are the guesstimations that lead toward facts... hopefully. Evolution theory is one of them that should have been dropped as theory long ago, because it is so ridiculous.

Brian Cox explains quantum mechanics in 60 seconds - BBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo

But... what are we talking about in this thread? Quantum theory or evolution theory? Loads of websites will tell you that there are random mutations and non-random mutations in evolution. What is the difference between random and non-random? Isn't it the same as caused and causeless?

There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution. As cause and effect is observable in countless operations, even so adaptation and like-begets-like is observable in countless operations. Where is the proof that anything is evolution? There isn't any. But stating that there is when there isn't, simply shows that...

Evolution is a hoax.

Actually, this is almost exactly what I have been talking about.

When you believe something, you trust that it is true. If you knew that it were true, you wouldn't have to trust. You wouldn't have to believe.

Your "97% of scientists" have a religion going for themselves in evolution... because they believe rather than know. If they knew, they would have proof, one way or another. Since they don't have proof for evolution, all they can do is believe... if they want to.

If the dean of your college/university, and the president/CEO of your company, lets you know that you will be fired if you prove that evolution is false, most folks would rather keep their job... even scientists. What they believe is not known. What they express might be known. The polls can twist things all out of shape to produce the desired results of the pollsters.

Are you getting the point, yet? All you are saying is that promoting evolution as a fact when it is not known to be a fact is simply adding fuel to the fact that...

Evolution is a hoax.

In reality, 97% of scientists believe in evolution

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


17 citations for just the opening section... that's enough sources even for BADLogic, right?

You have no evidence for your claims, Quantum theory states the processes are random. Not to be confused with ''causeless'' They have a cause but the outcome is unpredictable, so C&E doesn't affect the random part here. You can type as much as you want but 0 evidence.

Would a picture help?

I don't believe in evolution, because the truth of evolution has no real evidence, so I consider hoax evolution, for example cats will still be cats and cats will not change shape or evolve, cats will still be cats, the theory of evolution in my opinion makes no sense

We differ in our understand of what Evolution is. I gather that you think, if pure (true) random does not exists, it must be programmed, thus by definition “someone” must have made it. On the reverse side, if not programmed, pure (true) random must exist, something which, according to you, have not been found or observed ever! A dilemma I can see.

My point is that true random is not needed for evolution. C&E is very much alive, it goes for everything, a cause always gives an effect, in everything, programmed or not. Randomness in evolution comes from evolution itself! An ever increasing new pool of DNA material, produce ever increasing amount of randomness. There is no need for true randomness, as DNA mixing under different circumstances provides enough random in itself, and continuously expand.

Let’s just say that everything was created by a supreme being – which, as I have said earlier, might well be the case, it is now so far removed from the beginning, what he/she created, that it would not be recognizable anymore. No living being on this planet looks even remotely like the initial creation, if such was the case.

It’s much like the same situation humans are in with artificial intelligence, and the doomsdays scenarios we create around this. Once intelligence or rather awareness, free will maybe, is acquired, the creator is out of the loop. You are no more in control of the programming. Programming is neither a roadmap nor hinderers for randomness. You cannot predict combinations or patterns, as your creation has free will to do what it likes. Randomness multiply in the trillions each second, even if it is at the very bottom is programmable bits and bytes that decide for you. Too many options, under too many different circumstances, with too many individuals making decisions – well is that not actually random?

Yep, I'm a god. Jesus said in John 10:34-36:Since the Word of God has come to me in more ways than one, I am a god. Why do you attempt to throw away the small amount of "Godness" you have left?

Actually, the scientists have responded for decades, now. The impossibility of evolution has been known for a long time. The improbability of evolution was known long before that. Many scientists have responded in this way for a long time. But those who don't are simply denying their scientist nature in themsleves.

Let's say that we absolutely don't know what started the universe. None of this has anything to do with evolution. Why not? Because C&E proves that ETE can't exist. How? By C&E being programming, and by nothing other than C&E ever having been observed in any way. Your idea that radiation is pure random is theory, and very poor theory at that.

Actually, even though the question of random may be philosophical to some people, it is also a reality question that falls into the realm of scientific non-philosophical investigation.

When evolution theory talks about random, it is not talking about fake or false random.

The billion factors are a billion examples of cause and effect action, not of random. Multiply that by a billion years and billions of species and you have just proven no evolution. How? Not one example of non-C&E action has ever been found, factually. All actions that are not known to be C&E factually, are expected to be C&E, simply because of the trillions of C&E actions that have been found, without even one pure random action ever having been found.

Our computers are extremely limited when compared with the computer-like action performed in all life in nature. Computer action or lack thereof, has nothing to do with random. It has everything to do with C&E... since all computers act through C&E, while random in computer action is only artificial random simply because complex C&E looks like random to people. Why? Because of the inherent weakness of people to observe such complexity clearly.

When evolution theory evolution says "random," where does it ever say "artificial random?" Since the question of what ETE means by "random" seems to be appearing now, evolution is truly not known to exist. Why? Because if true random is not what evolution is talking about, then ETE is talking about artificial random, which is C&E operated. C&E acts perfectly, according to the laws of physics. This means that evolution is essentially programmed if it exists. But ETE doesn't talk along the lines of programming at all! So, evolution doesn't exist, even if pure random exists.

In Japan there have been simple robots built that can reproduce themselves if given the right parts for reproduction. It's all C&E done. Nature that has no true or pure random, is C&E programmed to reproduce way beyond current understanding. So-called examples of evolution are simply examples of super-complex programming on a scale unimaginable.

So the question remains: How did humans acquire such vast intellectual capacities so comparatively recently and so rapidly?
If the Cambrian period of 530 million years ago poses serious challenges to Darwin’s insistence upon slow, incremental change in the amazingly rapid proliferation of animals over a mere 5 to 6 million-year timespan (see Darwin’s Doubt https://darwinsdoubt.com/), then how much more should the transformational changes in the human brain over the past 100 to 200,000 years cause as serious reevaluation of the nature of human beings and the means by which they came to be.

His argument is that if randomness doesn't exist, someone or something must have put everything in motion however he fails to realize that for example, if the big bang is the beginning of the universe, the big bang isn't sentient, it didn't put things in motion knowingly. He is basically assuming, nothing is random and also assuming the creator of the universe is god, it's a classic badecker argument where he just assumes incredible things without any proof.