Pages:
Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 6. (Read 108057 times)

legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 09, 2019, 01:39:03 PM
...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.


Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Cool

Take off your blinders.  Don't say "we", just say "I don't know how evolution works and what the evidence for it is."

How do you think you will ever learn anything when you refuse to examine the evidence?


I took them off, and I found that you STILL don't have any proof for evolution. At least, you aren't even talking in that direction... probably because you wouldn't understand proof if it jumped up and bit you in the eye.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 09, 2019, 01:17:05 PM
...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.


Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Cool

Take off your blinders.  Don't say "we", just say "I don't know how evolution works and what the evidence for it is."

How do you think you will ever learn anything when you refuse to examine the evidence?
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 09, 2019, 01:14:36 PM

Sorry for the huge quote, but this is an important point of contention in this thread, and we still haven't got to the bottom of it.

BADecker - you accept simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like, yes? Your point is that 'random' mutations aren't really random because they have cause and effect, which you trhink suggests design. Is this right?

It's not just a mutation from 'A'->'B', though. 'A' mutates into 'C' through 'Z' as well. It's not that the mutation 'B' has been designed to succeed, it's that vast numbers of different mutations occur, the overwhelming are not beneficial and are (naturally) selected out of the gene pool. It's not that 'B' survives as a positive mutation because it has been designed that way, it's that of the 25 'B' through 'Z' variations, only one of them was beneficial to the animal's chances of survival. The 24 animals with the harmful 'C' through 'Z' mutations didn't reach adulthood to reproduce.


Take any one of your mutations and go deeper into it. The molecules all moved in every part of the mutation according to the way they were "bumped." What were they bumped by? Other molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc.

When they were bumped, why was it that they moved exactly as they did, and not in some other way? Because the way they were bumped, caused them to move, according to the laws of physics, which say that they must move this way, if they are bumped that way.

And the molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc., that bumped them, acted the ways that they did because other molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc., acted on them just exactly the way physics dictated they should act when bumped by whatever bumped them... back to the beginning. We don't have any example of anything acting outside the laws of physics. Everything had to act the way it did according to the laws of physics.

We call it random because we aren't even close to starting to track standard movements of individual molecules, atoms, heat energy waves/particles, etc., in nature. But none of it is really random. It all acts according to the laws of physics, right down to the tiniest subatomic particle.

Since simple random is simply our ignorance of details, evolution can be random in that way. But because everything acts according to the precise laws of physics, there is no pure random. If a time ever comes that we think we find something of pure randomness, it will only be because we haven't discovered the depths of its physics laws, yet.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 09, 2019, 12:59:04 PM
...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.


Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Cool
sr. member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 354
November 09, 2019, 03:16:59 AM
But all the evidence points at simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like way better than it points at evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like IS evolution. That's literally what evolution is. If you believe in those things, then you believe in the fact of evolution.
Come on, we've been over this!

The fact of evolution. I'd say theory, but there's more evidence for evolution than there is for anything else. This is stone cold fact.


Evolution Theory Evolution (ETE) is not simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like. The two basic areas where these things differ are in the understanding of random, and in cause and effect (C&E).

C&E, which exists all over the place, and throughout everything that we understand, suggests design rather than some form of pure random. ETE tricks people into thinking that random and pure random are the same. But they aren't. Pure random has to do with complete spontaneity. Simple random has to do with our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E.

ETE is full of simple random. But that we know, there isn't any pure random anywhere. This means that ETE is full of our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E. So, if we can't track it, how do we even know that it exists? Saying that ETE IS simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like is just a guess.

Simple random - not knowing - has to do with simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like, because these things all operate through C&E with no proof for ETE. Pure random doesn't exist at all that we have proven. Even computers that operate on what is called pure random, still have causes for their random effects. ETE has no proof.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Sorry for the huge quote, but this is an important point of contention in this thread, and we still haven't got to the bottom of it.

BADecker - you accept simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like, yes? Your point is that 'random' mutations aren't really random because they have cause and effect, which you trhink suggests design. Is this right?

It's not just a mutation from 'A'->'B', though. 'A' mutates into 'C' through 'Z' as well. It's not that the mutation 'B' has been designed to succeed, it's that vast numbers of different mutations occur, the overwhelming are not beneficial and are (naturally) selected out of the gene pool. It's not that 'B' survives as a positive mutation because it has been designed that way, it's that of the 25 'B' through 'Z' variations, only one of them was beneficial to the animal's chances of survival. The 24 animals with the harmful 'C' through 'Z' mutations didn't reach adulthood to reproduce.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 08, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.


Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 08, 2019, 03:25:13 PM
Fuck off BADecker, your reply is out of context motherfucker; I deny gravity, the BB, the heliocentric model and, the globe NOT CREATIONISM!!!

This is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of dishonestly manipulating perceptions.

So your religion not only denies certain things, but it has a potty mouth, as well.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 08, 2019, 03:24:10 PM

Not much to be said here.  You just proved my earlier point.

Not all Christians are crazy lunatics, but you are an exception.

Sounds like you simply have some kind of a grudge against me. Why are you so upset? Is it because I have essentially proven that ETE doesn't have a leg to stand on? And it wrecks your idea that you aren't religious because you believe in something that doesn't really exist?

Look at my post above this one.

Nothing against you personally.  You are not thinking independently - What does that even mean?, you have been indoctrinated to reject all scientific discoveries that contradict your favorite mythology. - Quite the contrary. To be honest, one has to refute scientific discoveries which aren't scientific. ETE is one of them.

I cannot stand people who reject science.  The scientific method is the best epistemic tool we have and to see people trivializing its usefulness just boils my blood.  People were tortured and killed because of it and the results it produced. - No, the scientific method isn't the best. Revelation is better. The scientific method is based on revelation. It's the revelation of nature that reveals things to us when we use the scientific method. ETE simply hasn't been revealed. All that there is, is a bunch of people who SAY that ETE exists, when there is no proof for it, and the evidence fits things other than ETE better.

BTW, you have proved jack squat.  You need to learn quite a bit before you can attempt to even define what you are trying to prove.

http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/ptefiles/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf

Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.


Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 08, 2019, 11:11:02 AM

Not much to be said here.  You just proved my earlier point.

Not all Christians are crazy lunatics, but you are an exception.

Sounds like you simply have some kind of a grudge against me. Why are you so upset? Is it because I have essentially proven that ETE doesn't have a leg to stand on? And it wrecks your idea that you aren't religious because you believe in something that doesn't really exist?

Look at my post above this one.

Nothing against you personally.  You are not thinking independently, you have been indoctrinated to reject all scientific discoveries that contradict your favorite mythology.

I cannot stand people who reject science.  The scientific method is the best epistemic tool we have and to see people trivializing its usefulness just boils my blood.  People were tortured and killed because of it and the results it produced.

BTW, you have proved jack squat.  You need to learn quite a bit before you can attempt to even define what you are trying to prove.

http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/ptefiles/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
November 08, 2019, 08:40:26 AM
Fuck off BADecker, your reply is out of context motherfucker; I deny gravity, the BB, the heliocentric model and, the globe NOT CREATIONISM!!!

This is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of dishonestly manipulating perceptions.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 08, 2019, 08:35:39 AM

Not much to be said here.  You just proved my earlier point.

Not all Christians are crazy lunatics, but you are an exception.

Sounds like you simply have some kind of a grudge against me. Why are you so upset? Is it because I have essentially proven that ETE doesn't have a leg to stand on? And it wrecks your idea that you aren't religious, because you believe in something that doesn't really exist?

Look at my post above this one.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 08, 2019, 08:32:06 AM
Creationism and God is nonsensical within the big-bang heliocentric globe model that's powered by gravity.

Creationism and God is NOT nonsensical. Consider:

The weight of one bacterium is 9.5 × 10-13 g - https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/LouisSiu.shtml. That's so small of a weight that nobody can even come close to understanding it. But a 200 lb man weighs 90,718.47 g.

In other words, the size and of a microbe is so small, that there is no way a microbe could even begin to think with a mindset like that of a man. A microbe really can't think at all.

Now consider the vast size and weight of the universe compared with that of a man. The size of the universe is so much greater than that of a man, that there might be no limit to how much greater the universe is.

Why would anybody be so stupid as to rule out a God that is even greater than the universe, because He made it?

The microbe can't think regarding great and small, but the man can. Why can't the man even consider that there might be a Being that is as much greater than he is, as he is greater than a microbe?

Cool
sr. member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 354
November 08, 2019, 05:54:54 AM
BADecker is being purposely hypocritical, it's a Jesuit mind trick
No he's not, and no it's not. Different people have different opinions, that's all. It's not all tricks and conspiracies.

you think he's a fool
No. If you dismiss everyone you disagree with as a fool, then your own opinions never get challenged and become fixed.

I still don't understand though how someone can agree with every single aspect of evolution, but then say it's not evolution.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
November 08, 2019, 03:48:37 AM
Creationism and God is nonsensical within the big-bang heliocentric globe model that's powered by gravity. BADecker promotes and defends these unproven, falsifiable and quite honestly laughable theories tooth and nail, then turns around and claims there's a creator.

BADecker is being purposely hypocritical, it's a Jesuit mind trick to keep you trapped in a prison of your own mind. He's gatekeeping the truth by manipulating your perceptions of creationism, you think he's a fool thus reinforcing all the pseudo-scientific theories that deny God.

sr. member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 354
November 08, 2019, 12:15:18 AM
cause and effect (C&E).
C&E, which exists all over the place, and throughout everything that we understand, suggests design rather than some form of pure random.

Pure random has to do with complete spontaneity. Simple random has to do with our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E.

I understand. It's quite a fine distinction, but I'll have a go. 'Random' mutations occur and combine with natural selection to result in evolution. Sure, these are not totally random. There is (extremely complex) cause and effect that result in genes mutating in the way that they do. Perhaps it would also be possible to predict the universe as it is now with everything in it, starting with just the big bang, and armed with only physics and time.
Yes, 'random' mutations are all caused by something, some repair error in genetic code. And it's not random that some mutations end up being beneficial and some detrimental, it's just how it fits the environment.

This isn't evidence of some omnipotent creator though, it's just physics plus time. Push a ball and it will fall off the table. Cause and effect. We can prove why it happened. Doesn't mean that God did it.


Hate to quote my own post, but what's your response to this?
I still don't understand how you can accept the facts of evolution, but then deny it happens.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 07, 2019, 09:39:32 PM

I think you are retarded, that is what I think.

Lol! Simple folk don't recognize genius, even when it comes up and bites what they post.

 Wink

Sure.  So you are not only delusional but also a megalomaniac.

Before you know it, you'll be God's prophet, LOL.

All Christians  are considered to be prophets, priests, and kings with regard to things in this life. Search on "all Christians are prophet priest and king." In my capacity as these, I can most definitely tell you that...

Evolution is a hoax. I don't even need the help of all the evolutionists who continually prove that ETE is a hoax, to help me.

Cool

Not much to be said here.  You just proved my earlier point.

Not all Christians are crazy lunatics, but you are an exception.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 07, 2019, 07:56:58 PM

I think you are retarded, that is what I think.

Lol! Simple folk don't recognize genius, even when it comes up and bites what they post.

 Wink

Sure.  So you are not only delusional but also a megalomaniac.

Before you know it, you'll be God's prophet, LOL.

All Christians  are considered to be prophets, priests, and kings with regard to things in this life. Search on "all Christians are prophet priest and king." In my capacity as these, I can most definitely tell you that...

Evolution is a hoax. I don't even need the help of all the evolutionists who continually prove that ETE is a hoax, to help me.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 07, 2019, 07:28:34 PM

I think you are retarded, that is what I think.

Lol! Simple folk don't recognize genius, even when it comes up and bites what they post.

 Wink

Sure.  So you are not only delusional but also a megalomaniac.

Before you know it, you'll be God's prophet, LOL.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 07, 2019, 06:36:44 PM

I think you are retarded, that is what I think.

Lol! Simple folk don't recognize genius, even when it comes up and bites what they post.

 Wink
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 07, 2019, 06:29:19 PM

Go visit the natural history museum and see the human lineage fossils for yourself.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/david-h-koch-hall-human-origins

10th St. & Constitution Ave. NW  Washington, D.C. 20560  Free admission. Open every day except  Dec. 25 from 10 AM to 5:30 PM

https://www.facebook.com/smithsonian.humanorigins/
 

All these fossils fit simple change, like-begets-like, and adaptation far better than they fit ETE. There is no proof that ETE has anything to do with any fossils. In fact, it is just the opposite. There are many fossils that evolutionists acknowledge as having no source for their existence.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

That was fast. Did you examine them?

Which ones fit 'like-begets-like'? Can you list them?  LOL.

The evidence is there, you are just not willing to see it, instead, you reject it all because it invalidates your mythology.


It was fast, because I didn't have to examine them to know that there isn't any ETE.

The fact that horses have baby horses rather than baby cows or baby ducks, etc., shows like-begets-like.

Evolution is a hoax. No proof for it after a couple hundred years of looking with modern science. And the evidence, if it fits at all, it fits just barely, in science fiction style.

Cool

If you did not examine the evidence, then you are in no position to speak on the subject.

But you see? I am in a position to post on the subject. How can you tell? Because you even respond to my posts that I post on the subject. Therefore I must have examined the evidence.

However, you can't seem to state the evidence yourself, in your own words. And you never respond to the point that there is proof.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

I think you are retarded, that is what I think.
Pages:
Jump to: