Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 61. (Read 108156 times)

Nope, those are examples of evolution and you can't debunk them so you type simple sentences so your brain doesn't stop working. It happens all the time, your brain has a defense mechanism, it will not accept being wrong and it has to ignore these arguments.

Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation.

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

Again, there is no need for testing something that is excessively in use all over the world. Every time that a scientist makes an experiment, he is using the same stuff that proves God. In other words, take your pick of scientific experiments for your test example.

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

I get the feeling we are not really discussing, you just don’t want evolution to exist, which is fair enough that you don’t believe in it. To each his own.

Evolution is change, any kind of change. You believe in adoption, but not evolution? If you adopt or acquire a new skill, have you not essential evolved? It might not be a physical change with your new found knowledge; it can still be passed on though. You are able to adopt mental, in skill, in knowledge, in behavior, yet somehow physical adoption seems too far stretch for you?

There is amber evidence in every species that they have looked different at one point, including humans. Leftovers include tail bone, thirteenth rib (8%), appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib (1%), third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and augmentable male nipples and body hair.

Seems God was not really sure how we should look during creation.

You don't test for the evident. But if you want to try, go ahead.

Two posts up, and a whole lot of other posts in this thread, show that evolution is a hoax. The alternative is God, or do you have another alternative?

Proof(s) for God:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Now remember. This is the evolution hoax thread. Peruse the Scientific proof that God exists thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322 ) to see the proof for God.

GAPING holes in evolutionary theory leave scientists baffled (and Darwin rolling in his grave)







Read more at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-20-gaping-holes-in-evolutionary-theory-scientists-baffled.html.

Since you don't list them, or their source posts, how would anyone know if you have any credibility in what you say?

Okay. Let me say it real plain.

Consider all of the missing links in the video, and all the rest of them anywhere else, as well.

Two stages:
1. Conversion of one animal form to the missing link;
2. Conversion of the missing link to another animal form.

There would be billions of mutations necessary for each stage to happen. Evolution theory does not provide for those billions of mutations in either type of conversion. Evolution theory says that the mutations would be few and far between. Common probability agrees with this. There would have to be many more missing links between both:
1. the one animal form to the so-called missing link conversion;
2. the so-called missing link to another animal form conversion;
for either of them to have become a missing link. So, if evolution is real, where are all these additional missing links?

In other words, even evolution theory does not support this stuff in your link.

Those so-called missing links were simply creatures of their own kind, or were simple adaptation of a form to its environment without evolution theory evolution at all.

But you know this. I simply reply for the educational benefit of those who do NOT know it.

You have given a few excamples yourself of proven evolution without knowing it, since you don't know what it is, so where is the hoax?

Maybe you can see it better now.

Maybe because theory are just theory they only rely on evidences they had gathered. I think there's no evolution at all. We are humans when we appear on earth not sort of monkeys that's just dont make sense to me.

You misunderstand. The testing goes on all around us all the time by both scientists and non scientists. All people need to do is realize that they are proving the existence of God at the same time they are doing their tests for other things. In other words, it is not the failure or success of the test. Rather, it is the fact of the testing being done that proves God.

That's a nice attempt at evading the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. If there were intermediated fossils, they could be pointed at, and evolutionists wouldn't have to make all kinds of excuses for their not being there. As it is, evolution people who try to suggest that intermediate fossils are unimportant, fill the books with gibberish so that people are distracted from the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. No intermediate fossils means no evolution in the sense of evolution theory... or have you found the string of those intermediate fossils that show evolution changes as they go?

If there were evolution beneficial mutations in some animal species, according to evolution theory, it would happen only once, here and there, with big time gaps of no evolution mutation between happenings. This means that all the interbreeding between a mutated animal and the normal animals would have bred the mutation out of existence. It's the way that it works. Immune systems do that in mutations.

Punctuated evolution was an attempt at pushing mutations closer together in time, so that there would be less chance of a mutation being destroyed by the immune system before the next mutation could come along.

Evolutionists are simply grasping at straws. And the straws are falling to pieces before they can really take hold of them. The reason why evolution has gained such strength, is exactly the same reason why religions spring up with great strength throughout history. Like the other religions, the evolution religion will gradually die out as more and more people wake up to the fact that there is essentially nothing factual to support it, and that evolution scientists are simply talkers who have talked people into believing something that has no substance.

Evolution is a hoax.

So in other words, no possible testing of god's existence, got it.

''you might as well do scientific tests to show that cause and effect exist'' Cause and effect exist, your claim that nothing is truly random, however that's a claim that cannot be tested right now. So you are again just making things up.

Any hypothesis needs to be clearly stated so that people can attempt to make a theory out of it. The same would be needed for a God-hypothesis. Besides, does anybody take something that is scientifically shown to be a fact, and make a hypothesis to determine if it is fact? That doesn't even make sense. If science already shows that God exists - as you stated - there is no sense in making a hypothesis to determine if He exists. Why? Because it has already been shown.

As for doing scientific tests to show God's existence, you might as well do scientific tests to show that cause and effect exist. C&E are self evident. Essentially 100% of scientific tests are C&E tests. When you go back to the basics like this, talking about doing scientific tests is talking about doing something that is exceedingly redundant, and essentially universal, already. See the "Scientific proof that God exists?" thread for all the information that proves that God exists.

You almost sound religiously hurt, feelings-wise, in the way you express that you think that God is a hoax. Why not examine the scientific proof that God exists, and the limited evidence that is against Him, and change your religion to a God religion. At least you would be doing something more logical that way.

On top of the above, you don't even express what all that has to do with evolution being a hoax or not.

2. The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science

''"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more.''
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

4 more examples of transitional fossils: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#41832e222d8d

I believe the things that God tells us in the Bible. I don't believe that God exists, because science shows us that He exists. Therefore I know it.

You have an interesting religion that doesn't match up with what science shows us.

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

Please explain a little more clearly so we can understand what you really believe..

I believe the earth is our creator and i believe you know it and i believe that you think i am the best thing you have ever known