Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 54. (Read 108046 times)

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.

The question whether what we call random, is truly random, is a philosophical question. My guess is as good as yours. It does not really matter, because you don’t need true random in Evolution. There are a billion factors on the line, just passing two DNA strings on to the next generation. Multiply that by billion years and a billion species, reproducing a trillion times each. You got all the randomness you will ever need. Not even all the computer power in the world could produce this level of randomness.

True randomness is by no means a requirement for evolution; you just need mixing under different circumstances, and there you got all the randomness you will need. And as said before Evolution is observable on the daily basic, in all species. Examples of evolution, you are constant looking for, are so plentiful in nature, you could not even count them. Certainly two parents having two different children is not adaptation? like-begets-like, I’ll give you that, exists very much. I got another word for that, Evolution!

I think variation is not due to selection from randomness.
DNA might be reading some quantum info from the Universe, trying it, sending aggregated results back
and getting new ideas. Trying them in the environment, and so on and so on.
So one aggregator might serve lots of exoplanets simultaneously.

Here is the issue with your arguments, badecker, are you a god? How is it that you always know better than top scientists in their fields? Because you always seem to know the answer to questions that thousands of scientists haven't been able to respond for decades. Right now radioactive decay is defined as a ''stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of a singular quantum of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay'' This is what the quantum theory says right now, you claim to know somehow that it's not true. How? Are you god?

Nobody has proof that radio active decay is not a C&E thing. More than likely, it is something like evolution, that some scientists want evolution or randomness so bad that they are grasping at one of the few straws left to them.

The fact that nobody can predict quantum this or that, simple means that we aren't smart enough. It doesn't have anything to do with what exists or doesn't exist, especially in quantum, since quantum is simply complex probability.

Going back to evolution, random mutations would be required according to ETE. No random mutations, because no random, = no evolution... at least not according to the ETE form of evolution. Nice try, however, to sidetrack us from the bottom line of no randomness.

There isn't any checkmate regarding evolution. Why not? Because evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

Why would you think that I think C&E eliminates randomness? We have billions or trillions of examples of C&E, but none whatsoever of pure random. They don't necessarily eliminate each other. It all revolves around what exists. How can you eliminate something that you can't find, i.e., random? It isn't there to eliminate?

If "you have to have the exact same causes, under the exact same circumstances," all you have is the exact same physics working with the exact same C&E. Nothing goes on in evolution, because evolution only exists in the minds of people who think it exists. We have no example of evolution in nature. All examples of evolution in nature are examples of adaptation or like-begets-like. How do we know? Because adaptation or like-begets-like fits the examples better than the evolution fiction. How do we know this? Because evolution says "randomness" in part, but C&E in as many things that we understand C&E in, without finding even one proven instance of pure random, shows that random doesn't exist probability-wise.

No random means no evolution, because evolution theory says that there have to be random mutations. All mutations are C&E actions.

What this all means is that C&E continues to work with physics laws to make large of varieties of "things" by the programming that C&E is. Or can you show us one proof of something that came about by random without being the effect of one or more causes?

Further, all the scientists know that C&E works in everything. How do we know that they know this? Because that's all they do in their observation or experimentation. Even a scientist who looks for pure random does it by using all kinds of C&E to find it. In fact, the scientist, himself/herself, is totally made of C&E.

Cause and effect does not eliminate randomness, not at all! In order to eliminate randomness you have to have the exact same causes, under the exact same circumstances, the exact same environment, working on the exact same items, in exactly the same order and timeframe, etc.… But that is not what goes on in evolution, not at all!

Why do two parents produce different children? Because not everything is exactly the same, the second time around. Billion small things are different, timeframe, order, environment, circumstances etc.. both external and internal.

Even if you could somehow make all those billion small things exactly the same, there is one thing you can’t make the same – time. Time has gone by, it itself is a change in condition (not to talk about the environment), thus causes are not the same anymore = different outcome. As far as I know time travel is not yet invented, at least it was not for 99, 999999% of evolution timeframe.

And we all do know evolution is a fact - just not all acknowledge it

''Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random.'' Radioactive decay disagrees with you. Although this whole concept is still extremely complex, scientists simply don't know whether everything is random or not. “As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

Going back to Evolution. Someone once started to think about animals and how they came to be, he eventually realized that through adaption, change, mutations they eventually are able to pass that onto the next generation and called it evolution. Simply defined: ''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''

The change can happen through adaption or mutation, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it's passed to next generations. For instance the lizards I talked about ''Each time lizards colonized an island, they evolved into many of the same forms. On each island, some lizards adapted to living high in trees, evolving pads on their feet for gripping surfaces, along with long legs and a stocky body. Other lizards adapted to life among the thin branches lower down on the trees, evolving short legs that help them hug their narrow perches. ''

Because they were able to pass those characteristics/changes/adaptions to next generations, they evolved because that's the definition of evolution. Check mate.

BADLogic: Next time you are sick, or in a car accident, or get cancer... just pray to god instead of going to the hospital... do us all this favor, please

None of us knows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) exists.

Cause and effect eliminates random. Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random. Yet, random is a requirement for ETE. Google "random mutations evolution."

If the cause didn't produce the exact effect that was caused, fabrication and engineering wouldn't work. The only difference in nature is that the causes and effects are many, and are tiny enough that we can't track them. But physics is exact. It controls everything so that the cause always causes the exact effect required by the way the cause acts. There is no room for random as ETE suggests.

Since this is the way the whole universe works, there is no ETE evolution. There might be simple change, or there might be adaptation, and you can call both of these evolution to some extent, but they are not ETE.

An engineer conducting an experiment is the cause, and often uses many causes to obtain the effects he is looking for. If things were random as ETE calls for, the engineer could never know if he would ever get the desired results/effects.

Standard scientists know this. They know that ETE is impossible, despite what they say. Because of this...

Evolution is a hoax.

Lol, let me help you man.

No spinning ball earth equals NO heliocentric model,
No heliocentric model equals NO big bang,
No big bang equals NO evolution,
No evolution equals NO atheism,
No atheism equals NO aliens seeding humans.

Flat earth destroys that all in one, don't waste your time, research flat earth: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.44202857

Hmm, we all know evolution exists

How do you figure that cause and effect eliminates the possibility of Evolution? Sounds like you think they are mutual exclusive?
Everything is cause and effect; there is always, in everything, a cause that gives an effect. While in science, fabrication / engineering you use causal systems and experiments, it’s either a closed system or you only see the effects that materialize. In other areas it’s purely a philosophic subject, because here you wonder also about the things that could have materialized, but did not.

Nothing excludes evolution in neither science or in philosophy, cause and effect.

There is no such thing as cause and effect programming in Evolution. Cause and effect, yes, programming, no. Evolution works in the biggest system we know, the universe, with no option to step outside the system to observe. The observer is himself part of the “experiment”. There is absolutely no way to run the experiment without either contributing to the cause, or being an effect. An Engineer conducting an experiment does it from the outside, observing in. He is able to add or remove items in order to observe cause and effect. He is not himself part of the experiment.

Notice that your link, itself, says "evidence." Evidence is not proof until it shows that things could be no other way. Regarding evolution theory type of evolution (which is what we are really talking about), the evidence could be something else other than evolution. It all could be adaptation. And since there is no proof that it was evolution and not adaptation, we don't know.

Where do we find adaptation? We have proof of adaptation all over the place.

In addition, we see like-begets-like all over the place. Horses don't have baby cows. Chickens don't have baby foxes.

Since we clearly have proof of billions or trillions (if you include microbes) of examples of adaptation and like-begets-like, and not one example that we can clearly say is evolution, why would anyone even think that the norm of adaptation/like-begets-like has changed anywhere? The things that make more sense are, the complexities of nature are far greater than we understand, the variety of like-begets-like creatures are far greater than we have known, and adaptation is extremely complex at times.

Since we seem to want something like evolution to exist, when we know for a fact all we have proof of is complex adaptation and complex like-begets-like...

Evolution is a hoax.

There definitely is proof of evolution, there is more to science than just a hypothesis. I'm questioning the source of the information that led you to your current beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence

Researchers calculate that sound has negative mass and negative gravity







Read more at https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/researchers-calculate-that-sound-has-negative-mass-and-negative-gravity.html.

Good and evil doesn't exist, everything is programmed with C&E. Murders aren't real, everything is programmed with C&E. People aren't really building anything everything is programmed with C&E. You aren't posting this everything is programmed with C&E.