Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 62. (Read 108046 times)

When I studied at junior high school and learned about evolution theory as Charles Darwin said that the human is from apes. I disagree althought my teacher said that.
I do not want to be equated with apes. And I also rethinking: Why there are still monkeys that are still alive?

As usual. Now you try to twist things to make it look like I am the one who thinks that there is a missing link.

There isn't any evolution missing link. In zillions of fossils, we haven't been able to find one that we can prove. Lots of talk. Lots of ideas. But no proof.

So, missing-link ideas, along with the rest of the evolution ideas, are simply science fiction.

Or, show us the proof for even one evolution form. Your talk isn't proof. Point us at the proof that is accepted as proof by science, not just places where scientists and quasi-scientists say they have proof without showing it. Or explain it in enough detail that we can see that it is proof.

Can't do it, right?

Evolution is a hoax. And thanks for keeping this thread alive by your lack of proof, while you are willing to talk with no proof behind what you say. More and more people are starting to wake up about the evolution hoax, just because of you. Good job!

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Well, come on you evolutionists out there. What is wrong with the info in that Wikipedia link, above? Check in the same page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Fossil_record . What's it saying in this second link? It's saying that the fossil record is so incomplete that it doesn't have a record of evolution in it. Yet, the animals shown in earlier portions of the page say that there are missing links. Since the fossil record is incomplete, how does anybody know that any of the fossils are missing links?

It's all make believe. There aren't any missing links because evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves.

Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution.

You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C.

Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.

What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and...

Evolution is a hoax.



P.S.   This is fun    I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution.

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful?

At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things?

Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion.

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities?

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution!

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples.

In other words, evolution as reality is possible!

Evolution is reality

Narr not really. Capable enough to find my own answers.

It’s all assumptions! If and if and if, all the lovely things you complain about in evolution!

Not dealing with all the issues of incest and inbreeding, after all you only have one male and female to begin with, and never mind turning women into nonstop breading machines – for 100s of years at a time, you also surpassed growth percent of a factor 100 vs. any other time in history.

And how about the food for this massive population explosion? All other animals and plants have also just been created, they need time too, to super populate like the humans.

And while this is just in the beginning – few humans and few animals, humans start to build super structures of massive sizes all over the world.  Impressive! Never mind I disregard the Neolithic structures predating 4000 B.C, cause I don’t know how they were build, since no humans where around?

''
Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record'' Literally all history shows that it isn't. No noah's ark anywhere, no indications of a massive flood, no talking snakes or other creatures like demons, no possessions. You keep saying it's accurate, it's accurate on what exactly?