Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 68. (Read 108050 times)

The programming for all of the physical, and many of the mental processes, is found in the DNA. But the forms of DNA programming that would constitute evolution have never been found.

Copy a tape a million times and you will only find devolution... never evolution.

True, offspring looks overall the same as their parents, but they are not the same, not by a longshot. Neither physical nor the actual building blocks.
They can be taller or shorter, longer legs, bigger arms, smaller hand, blue eyes, red hair – and the more extreme, two heads, four arms, 10 fingers etc..

Take a tape, copy it a million times. A copy of a copy. Do you think it’s the same song still?  This is how evolution works. No one is arguing that a chicken gives birth to a baby elephant. This is not how evolution works. Evolution takes time, lots of time, but small changes can be seen all the time, all around you. Look at your own children. Are they taller then you? maybe smarter then you? Maybe dark hair? Maybe more compact? Or all the reverse. Evolution right in front of you!

And, of course, the testing produces no conclusive results. If it did, it would be considered scientific fact.

This is the way that a bunch of people incorporate their design ideas of what fact should be into our minds as though it is fact. They call it scientific theory, something that is constantly tested, and most often, found to be wrong somewhere down the road.

The scientific laws are scientific facts, not scientific theories, because they have never been found to be wrong, but have been found to be right so many times that there is not a scientific chance that they can be wrong.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Of course after everyone telling you this hundreds of times you will still say the same shit, you are like a mindless robot, programmed to say the same things always, you indeed do not evolve.

Basically, a scientific theory is an educated guess about something scientific. As such, it can be modified to fit new findings.

This means that a scientific theory is not only less than a theory in the general sense of the word, but it might also be a consensus of a bunch of people who could be jokers with an political agenda rather than a desire for truth. So, that is what you are being led by in following scientific theory.

2 Timothy 4:3:

And again, the classic, it's just a theory. Before saying more stupid shit, read what a scientific theory means because it's pretty much the best thing you can have in science.

I was kind of amazed by the exchange of ideas here.

Well, for me, evolution remains to be a theory, yes, just that, a theory, until now. I don't know how Charles Darwin became a celebrity scientist right after he theorized that what we are now are different centuries and centuries ago. Perhaps because his idea was sort of radically new? The discovery actually caused a bandwagon mentality among a lot people. The entire world was stirred by his claim. Established religion was terribly shaken to its core. School curricula are challenged. The people's comfort zone was rendered uncomfortable. 

Religitard's logic is as follows:
Everything in the scriptures is true, everything that contradicts the scriptures is false.

Life is so much simpler in the United States of Religitardia.  They don't need to worry about spacetime, Higgs field, or BB.  They have Genesis.
All the answers are provided for them.

All you are suggesting is that the word "evolution" is the wrong word, and that evolution theory is not the same as the evolutionists say it is.

Some evolutionists suggest that people evolved from a form of ape. Since - as you say - like begets like, they are wrong. People were always people; apes were always apes. Evolution is wrong.

The point? Evolution is a hoax, either by the misapplication of the word, or by your improper usage of it, or by the false training that it gives to people who don't look into the evolution idea very much.

Evolution is a hoax.

Badecker is someone who will not learn anything ever. He keeps yelling ''it's only a theory'' but you can see him in the flat earth thread defending gravity against notbatman, gravity is also just a theory, isn't it?

I'm a bit comfused.. Everything you say agrees with evolution
"We look all around us and we see offspring of both plants and animals that are similar to their parents"
True, thats part of evolution..
"Never do we see chickens having baby alligators. Never do we see alligators having baby bears. Never do we see bears having anything other than baby bears. Not even once."
True. The evolution therory says the same thing.
"Countless numbers of like begets like proven all over the place.
Countless forms of adaptation proven all over the place."
True
 So why are you sudenly jumping to "Evolution is a hoax" if you agree with everything in the therory?
I have asked you before. Read up on what the therory is. This just makes you look stupid

^^^ Balance is the thing that leaves room for imagination.

For example. We look all around us and we see offspring of both plants and animals that are similar to their parents. Chickens have baby chickens. Alligators have baby alligators. Bears have baby bears. And this happens for all the forms of life. And it happens countless numbers of times all around the world, from giant whales to microscopic single celled creatures.

Never do we see chickens having baby alligators. Never do we see alligators having baby bears. Never do we see bears having anything other than baby bears. Not even once.

All of this works with such balance that we have lots of room for imagination. The thing we imagine is evolution. And the excuse for imagining evolution is that we are unwilling to recognize what we are really seeing... adaptation. Why are we unwilling to recognize adaptation? Simply because that's what we want to do.

Countless numbers of like begets like proven all over the place.
Countless forms of adaptation proven all over the place.
Not even one proven happening of evolution.

It totally doesn't make sense that smart scientists can imagine that evolution happened without having ever seen even one for-a-fact instance of it, and yet know for a fact that trillions of like-begets-like and adaptation are happening all over the place.

Evolution is a science fiction hoax.

No man. Everything is so balanced we can't even imagine. Evolution is tottaly calculated and naturally going. If there would be haox, we wouldn't be here

Religitard's logic is as follows:
Everything in the Scriptures is false, everything that contradicts the Scriptures is true.

After all, there is no factual evidence for the existence of evolution. Not one factual example of evolution has been found. Everything that seems to point at evolution, can be described by adaptation better. This makes the Theory of Evolution a religious writing. A religious writing with no evidence like evolution, is a religious writing.

Scripture has the living nation of Israel to back it up, and the best logic in its laws, as well. Scripture might be used as religion, but it is life.

Then how can you believe the bible? Who says that people didn't make up everything that's written in the bible? The bible is not a certain thing, same with other religious books.

Laws of physics have not evolved. They may have abruptly changed about 6,000 years ago. Included are the laws of time, making whatever time was before, to be different than it is today.

As for countries and organisms living before about 6,200, how do you know? Don't tell me you were there. Don't tell me that you know for a fact that in the last 6,000 years there haven't been any national novels made in countries, or that physical appearance we see scientifically, absolutely indicate that it was always this way. Science, itself, has found out that there have been many cataclysmic events in the past that have changed our ideas of what we believed before we discovered the cataclysms.

What I mean is, if the first C-14 for carbon dating came into existence 4,500 years ago, how could our carbon dating go beyond 4,500 ago? And that is what the ancient writings seem to suggest - that there was a "cloud" around the earth before the Great Flood of Noah's day, preventing the forming of C-14. Carbon dating is not a certain thing. Same with the other forms of scientific dating for one reason or another.

Are you suggesting that the laws of physic have evolved too? Interesting concept I have to say. If you add a lot of zeros to 6000, so the time frame becomes a lot larger, I have to agree.
Even more interesting, you put an IF in front of universe prior to 6000 years ago. Some Middle East and Egyptian cities are very close to being continuously inhabited for this timeframe. Some longest living organisms (have lived or are living) surpass this timeframe with ease. Did they exist prior to the universe?

There is no way to prove that radioactive decay is random. But, radioactive decay involves material disintegrating. And material action operates by cause and effect, not random.

Entropy isn't the only requirement to show that God exists. So your entropy point is moot.

The eye witness records of the Bible state that the earth is approximately a little over 6,000 years old. By this we know that there are flaws in modern dating records. However, the scientists who started those records stated that they were uncertain that the methods were correct. Others have said the same. Scientific guestimations are part of the fiction of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

And thanks for helping to show it, again.

There is no way for you to prove that radioactive decay is not random. Just because a lot of things have causes doesn't mean that everything else also does.

''But entropy shows the beginning, which means that even if radioactive decay was started at the beginning, it had a cause that it is the effect of.'' Entropy does not however show what the cause of the beginning is so it doesn't matter. Claiming that somehow you know there is a god ''outside the universe'' whatever that means is a lie because you don't know that.

You wont accept all the evidence of dating methods we have to show that the earth and the universe are far older than the bible says because you say that we don't know if those methods worked like that in the past, the same can be applied to your argument, you are not logical with your beliefs.