Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 68. (Read 108161 times)

OMG. You are losing it. Jumping from one thing to another. Nietzsche is a philosopher. Evolution is a scientific theory (one of the greatest in terms of explanatory power). Atheism is a disbelief in God or gods.
I devotedly brush my teeth every evening and no one can convince me it's wrong, so is brushing teeth a religion, according to your bright logic?
Although I understand your point that people can be rigid in their beliefs, whatever they were. I'm not like that. I believe the most reasonable and proven scenario. And that is evolution right now.
Don't be so quick to judge people. I'm not an atheist, totally opposite - pantheist 

Im not against it at all. Or maybe not more than any human made idols. All of the idols are just mere imaginations and are real only in the mind of its believers. Im not one of the believer.

Its like cult of the flag. Someone might ask me - why are you against the cult of the flag or any such a thing. You marvel the creature or things that creatures made and not the creator of all. Thats all.


Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again?

You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say?

You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you.

You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says:

2 Tim 4:3

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"


You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do.


Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors).

So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok?

Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears...


Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well...

Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist.


Huh? Like what? He violated the Talmud... The metaphorical rabbinical traditions ok?

Are you talking about Sabbath? He told the accusers he was not working - he took pleasure with helping people. That was literal not working ok? Metaphoricly one can wonder if breating is working, and some had that metaphor - so they were not allowed to breath deeply on Sabbath or leave their homes.

The taboo you are talking about came from metaphoricasing the word of God. The exact same thing what you do.

Here you go again, calling scientists stupid. After all, they haven't found one proof for evolution, and very few evidences for evolution that might fit the evolution idea better than they fit anything else. And it's been well over a hundred years that they have been looking scientifically, and thousands of years that they have been looking without applying modern science.

Come on! Give us even one proof, please! You and your childish beliefs! Evolution is, at best, a religion. But really...

Evolution is a hoax.

You entirely ignore the fact that according to the complete definition of religion, Nietzsche and evolution and atheism are religion, just as formal religions are religion. See #6 at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t): "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Now find some proof of evolution, or become honest with yourself.

Evolution is a hoax.

I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that?

Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Here you go.

It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not.

Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

In addition, God is a giving God. but, at the same time He can't deny Himself. So, what does He do?

Because God is giving, and because nobody can change this quality of His, He gives evolutionists the answer that they want to see, by blinding their minds to the truth. After all, He isn't going to deny Himself by changing the truth, or by denying evolutionists what they ask for and changing His nature thereby.

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:
 
a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?

You yourself know that you don't know for a fact that life evolved. You believe it because some other people told it to you. And you are so happy about it that you won't even check out the fact that they are talking nonsense. You would rather simply believe. If you were honest, you would stop troll spreading your religion as fact, when you don't know that it is fact.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are helping to prove it.

How life arose is NOT meaningless when talking about evolution theory. All of the true abiogenesis (which isn't really abiogenesis at all) is important because it proves evolution theory false.


Bias isn't the important thing. If the site were placed there from Neptune inhabitants who thought they were talking about life on Neptune, it would still be accurate. Why? Because it is accurate.



I don't have to check those rebuttals today. I have checked many of them in the past, and I know the circular logic they use.

You are the one who hasn't checked them. If you had, you would see the circular logic in them, unless you are a... troll.

Evolution is a hoax.

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

''In other words, we don't know, scientifically.'' Well, yeah, it's a really hard problem, however as explained above, how life arose is meaningless when talking about evolution theory.

4. Just like answers in genesis is a totally biased website? I provided other link and you can also just google it.

''As I said, the rebuttals rebut themselves in their attempt to rebut proof that evolution is impossible.''

Your brain is a little bit fucked up but that's ok, I will help you, you didn't even check any rebuttals, you always just try to find ''proof'' against evolution in your 2-3 religious websites and never bother to look anywhere else.

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

No. The remain of a tail is to test evolutionist faith that are tempted to cut it out. That is the same case with the whales and his "legs". It is very very very needed as long as you want to have any control with your sex life and ability to control when you dump and when you do not dump.

It is especially useful in women sexual life as those bones are for the Kegel muscles.



It is the muscle attached to the "tail" and pubic bone. Go ahead and cut of all of it....


Yes it is opinion versus opinion...

About the points that Baddecker had given - you say you have found something that "might have been". Fossils can be made not taking a lot of years - all it need to be is sharply decrease any oxygen like during the flood. Geological dating is circular logic at best.

And you said about the planets that "maybe it is possible". So you only answered to 2 and you answered maybe it is possible versus - it was not been found. And you say that what we say is weak... well...

Just because there are no life outside of the earth that we know does not point towards creator. Maybe it does not. Ok. You still need some faith, but it points less to evolution ok?

When scientists say something like, "yup, that might have been gills," they are also saying, "yup, that might NOT have been gills." Ideas and theories are great. But when you tout unproven ideas like evolution as fact, without recognizing that the evidence can be applied to other things better, you have a hoax or a religion.

Evolution is a hoax, but it has become a religion for many.