Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 72. (Read 108050 times)

Guess what? God didn't write the Bible. Some bearded Jews did. But you can believe what you like.
I wouldn't take their word, especially after some much time has passed and we know much more about the world.
Another thing, let's assume God really spoke through the Bible. How would he explain evolution to some warring desert tribes? It would be easier for them to just think that "God created everything". For the same reason we don't teach evolutionary biology in kindergarten. Even adults have trouble understanding it 

Since your links never show any proof, and since the evidence in your links fits creation or adaptation better than evolution, I am right in saying the same old thing.

Except that God, Himself, in the Bible says creation, and "after its kind"... not evolution.

Devil is a term invented by the ego to blame someone else for its problems and failures.
I'm not a Christian and yes I highly appreciate gnosticism. I'm calling you brother as a fellow human. We are brothers despite every possible difference between us. It's a sad thing that you think that your fellow humans are deceived by the devil and even call it proven. (How would you prove such a thing). Very egoistic belief also. No one is right except us, the chosen people, type of belief. Christianity can do better than that tribal idea. Do you think God would let billions of people be deceived and only give the truth to the chosen Jewish/Christian people? What kind of God would it be? Would you let your children be deceived? Would you favour one over the others?

My point is this: God is in/among us and in the whole of nature, growing with it...in its magnificent splendor, evolving through myriad of lifeforms. But you are to fascinated with ancient books to see Him in Nature and fellow humans.
Have you heard of a Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin)? Please read his work to see how evolution nicely fits with Christianity. Never stop learning.

The things shown in the links are evidence for creation. God made life on our planet to work together.

The proof for evolution is lacking. Why? Because all the evidences provided can easily be shown to be either adaptation or evidence of creation compatibility.

In other words, it's what you want to believe. Evolution is a religion.

Evolution is a hoax.

And all your links, which are basically all from answers in genesis SAY there is no evidence. Let me say it again, there is proof for evolution.

''Show us even one proof of evolution.'' Well every time I link something you say the same stupid shit like above lmao

''And also. Essentially all the evidence for evolution fits something else better.'' Again saying the same shit, no it doesn't. Evolution totally destroys creationism, get over it.

''Next, there are the many things that show evolution to be impossible.'' They are all fallacious and easily rebutted tho.

http://kulab.org/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/principles-of-evolution/evidence-for-evolution

You are welcome for the thanks. But I'm not interested in teaching a class at Harvard right now.


A couple of buddies were driving down the road one day. As they were going along, they came to a red light, but the driver didn't stop. He drove right on through. The passenger thought, "Well, everybody does that once in a while." They came to another red light, and again, the driver drove right on through like he didn't see that the light was red. His buddy casually remarked, "Who taught you to drive? That was a red light back there." The driver replied, "My brother taught me to drive, and doesn't red mean 'go' and green mean 'stop'?" His buddy, the passenger, was shocked. He said, "No, no. It's just the opposite. Red means 'stop' and green means 'go'. Your brother has it backwards. If you don't change, we're liable to get into an accident." "I see," said the drive. "I'll do it the right way from now on." As they were driving along, they came to a green light. The driver stopped. The passenger thought, What? He said, "Didn't we just go through this - red means 'stop' but green means 'go'? Why did you stop for green?" The driver said, "My brother might have been coming the other way."


All the evidence that fits evolution theory so far, fits something else better... something like adaptation.

All the so-called proof for evolution so far, has been found to not prove evolution when it is examined according to further and more complex scientific examination.

There are many things in nature and life that show that evolution in any way we can imagine it is impossible.

When we think that our brother might be coming down the road with mixed up evolution evidence, we need to slow down for the "green," not stop for it. We need to show him that the proof for evolution is all talk, even though it might be something that maintains evolution theory.

The only reason that evolution is maintained as a theory rather than simply dropped, is because some people want it to remain a theory. They want it to remain a theory for several reason, among which are:
1. They make money off the belief of people, via the universities, and the digs;
2. They remain popular and famous because of it;
3. Dropping evolution, as it should be dropped, would upset the current flow of science;
4. Dropping evolution, as it should be dropped, would upset society because of how wide-spread the evolution religion has become.
But the evolution lie needs to stop so that people can wake up and live with correct thinking.

Evolution is a pure hoax.

Thanks for showing me what religion means. Great that you put such a complex term in one sentence, really academic approach, you should have your own class on religion on Harvard.
In line with this definition - I fully believe red traffic light means "don't go", so is it a religion? Do you see how absurd you sound when you use this definition out of its context?

Proof of evolution is all around you, in fossils, in DNA, but you think it's a hoax. Where is the proof of creationism? I don't consider ancient books as proof if they are contradicted with scientific evidence and ordinary logic. This is the difference between creationists and evolutionists.
I don't believe evolution because someone says so, but because it feels so natural and logical. After all, it feels so elegant, actually divine. But creationists cannot think of an elegant God who uses evolution, they see God with a magic wand, like kindergarten kids. But I don't have a problem with that because I accept different viewpoints. The problem is when you use the words like "hoax" for things you don't like or don't understand.

This is interesting. All the evidence in your links is that they SAY there is evidence.

Let me say it again. There is no proof for evolution. Show us even one proof of evolution.

And also. Essentially all the evidence for evolution fits something else better.

Next, there are the many things that show evolution to be impossible.

Evolution is a hoax.

https://www.thoughtco.com/direct-evidence-for-evolution-249903
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

There is plenty of evidence, there are hundreds of different websites with it. I know you only believe ''answers in genesis''

Science can be told to be as much con as religion Smiley

Your preaching science and know nothing of it, just because you saw it somewhere .

That's how conning works.

But im not conned by your madness Smiley

Not more than by preacher of any sort.

Science doesnt prove much evolution  no more than you prove anything.

You dont even know what proof is lol

Typing in caps being drunk insulting people is not really a proof of anything outside of your own madness and authority complex .

I blame your parents for yelling too much at you to show their authority.

You just lost it. Why? This is a forum where we communicate using words. If we don't understand the meanings of words, then the forum has no meaning.

I showed you the meaning of the word religion. But you don't like the meaning. Why not? Do you simply like to have your own pet meanings for words? If that's what it is, why would you expect anyone to be able to communicate with you in a forum?

Further. Thank you for letting us know that you are not an atheist, although why you did so is unclear.

If you believe in evolution, you have a religion. Believe is what is done in religions. If you KNOW about evolution, then you know it is a hoax. Why? There isn't any proof for evolution. Even evolution evidence fits something else better than it fits evolution. The evolution scientists who study evolution know this. But since you simply believe what they say because you don't know, you have made them the high priests of your evolution religion.

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?