Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 77. (Read 108165 times)

Yeah. A person can have benefit of a doubt it seems. You agree that people can have that towards the evolution don't you?

It is extremely easy to prove you are wrong. Childishly easy to prove you have not created the universe. Because the universe existed before you.

Poof. Your theory have been smashed to pieces. You think it is hard to prove something is impossible? Proving something being impossible is easy. At least if it is ridiculous like you claim God to be.



God have created kinds at least according to the Bible and reality it seems. Noone argues about adaptation. We need to be sure what we call species. God have created for example a dog. If an evolutionist would found non existing race of a dog he could call it a missing link. It is no missing link. It is just a type of a dog. Why not assume its the same with all the fossils? It is just a variations of existing species that changed within the changing enviroment. Enviroment change so most animals probably have less or more fat storage or something like that to be able to adapt and the bones reflects that. Thats what adaptation is about.

Of course! If it were not ‘within existing theory’, it would be irrelevant to evolution. A counterfeit dollar note is only counterfeit if it is meant to replicate what a person thinks characterizes a dollar bill. Thus Monopoly money is not counterfeit, because it was never intended to be used outside the game. In the same way, if a paleontological fraud were not within existing theory, it would be irrelevant to evolution

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

''So to prove that creation is valid, one should have to simply not have an other valid proof.'' - Przemax - 2018


''To be proven innocent one should not be proven guilty.'' Actually it's, ''everyone is innocent until proven guilty''

I created the universe and it's true until you can prove it wrong.

There is no problem in my brain because I do not call my beliefs science. There is something apparently wrong with you trying to imply I have ever called my beliefs to be science.

One does not have to be scientific to be proven. For example an innocence - does not have to be scientificly proven. To be proven innocent one should not be proven guilty. So to prove that creation is valid, one should have to simply not have an other valid proof. The statement is non contradictory hence it is assumed to be true.

And one thing does not have to be scientific to be theory.

For example an evolution does not have to be scientific to be a theory.

Where are your repeatability of god? Where is your observability of god? Where is your falsifiability of god? Again, this is the deep problem with your brain, you don't seem to ask these questions about your own beliefs, cognitive dissonance is a serious condition.

No. The Bible does not originated from the Torah - it is the Torah and the book of prophets, and the New Testament . It is Jewish Bible aka Tanah - the Old Testament is the Jewish holy book. It is our holy book. Because christians are the new Israel of the spirit.

Talmud - the book that judaism mostly uses is not a holy book - the Rabbi themselves admitt that.

It is the original Tanah the Word of God. Muslims have deeply edited version of the same thing. They rewrote what they had not like just to justify their tribality. From a Jewish and Christian perspective - editing the Word of God is something noone should do - it is forbidden.

Editing the word of God resulted in muslims inventing the evolution. It came to Europe via Templars and their orders. Templars then have restructured themselfs to masons. So it was masons that are behind that evolution thingy. So it should be no surprise that a mason write another mason a peer-review and screw other nonmasons. Does that surprise anyone?

Darwin was teologian. His father was a teologian. It was a fully grown religious concept of evolution when Darwin had signed his silly book. His book was supposedly written by someone more intelligent as C. Darwin was supposed to be dumbest of all the Darwins family.

Just for your personal information. I know it sounds deeply confusing from a pop-culture perspective.


They showed 1 out of many experiment involving meterorite that supposedly prove that. I am asking - why then all the rest gives from 5 to 8 aminoacids out of 20. It is deeply fraud like. It seems like this meteorite contained some dead bug in it - hence all aminoacids needed. But talking about the flying bug in the space is even dumber than evolution.

And I thought that a magical monkey fossils that noone had seen, but yet is believed to be true is dumb enough. Dead bug in the space beats it all.

They show the untested sample of their holy grail they supposedly found in 2008 - that is their only "prove". For it to be prove it should have to be retested. They fail to grasp the importance of retesting in science and yet call others willfuly ignorant. That is hipocritical.


Where are your repeatability of evolution? Where is your observability of evolution? Where is your falsifiability of evolution?

It is not science. It fails miserably at those things needed to be called science. It is a religion so... you know... it could as well be a religion of Satan for all I know.

Abiogenesis is science fiction. Show proof, por favor.


Since evolution science is religion, this fits extremely well.



Okay. I watched your video, LOL! It shows a bunch of animals that are similar in some ways, but different in other ways. Then it tries to suggest that some of these are intermediates.

Dawkins is so silly. He doesn't show any intermediates at all! All he says is that they are intermediates. But we can see by the looks of them, that they don't even look enough like each other enough to be an intermediate.

Also, his wording included the words, "... what we now believe is that... ." This shows that there isn't any stability in evolution science, that evolutionists constantly change what they believe in, making evolution one of the most unstable religions ever.

None of these things have any proof in the way that Dawkins explains them. So, thanks for helping to prove that evolution is a religion at best, but really a big fat hoax.

Yeah, maybe it's more trusty the theory that says woman is created by the rib of a man.
Sure

http://www.superofertard.com/uploads/coupons/KPD5-1NVF-CN8G.jpg

You wont understand it. He will just say something random. He can be extremely skeptical about things but blindly believe in his god, just a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

I'm sorry that you feel attacked by me asking questions. I'm sure your faith can't be shaken by someone asking questions!? It's funny that you mention that the Quran was "gutted out" of the bible, since I'm sure you're aware that the bible itself contains literature that originated in the Torah? Like the Pentateuch? So what does that make your bible? Again, not trying to be disrespectful, just trying to understand a religious person's perspective.

''“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from the not-living!''

Yes they have, it's called abiogenesis.

''God the Creator has an enemy, Satan the devil, who opposes Him in everything. The influence of God’s enemy on the thinking of scientists becomes obvious when they dismiss the truth and accept such lies.''

LUL, very scientific source.

''Here is where the links are missing. If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none. These missing intermediate fossils are referred to as “missing links.”''

LUL, there is no such thing as the missing link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

Is there anything right in your link?

The Fraud of Evolution




Read more at https://www.thetrumpet.com/594-the-fraud-of-evolution.

You would not know what is scientific even if I would flash it over your face. Mmmk? All you neo-atheist pop-cultural teens know is to throw science here and there and have absolutely no idea what are their principles ok?

In science nothing is written in stone. You can only disprove things. Ofcourse something can be repeatable. That is one of the principles of science. Im sorry... noone else is God and could repeat the work of creation. So you ask impossible. But hey - if noone had done the assumed impossible - doesn't that prove God? Yeah it does. It proves that only him can do it. By elimination that is a BIIIIIG prove.

But noone in their right mind could say - God have not done it. Why do you try? Are you not out of touch with reality? Why do you even try to do things that noone in the world can do? To disprove God? What is your gain in that insane task?

Rofl, you are funny. ''most proven theory'' definitely not a scientific theory first of all. ''Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.'' Belief =/= proven.

''Not a single thing contradicts it'' Not a single thing proves it you mean? I can find plenty of flaws in the bible and god's logic, all the rape and death is also contradictory of the description of god then again I'm not going to go into detail, you already made your position clear, you are obviously delusional and nothing can be done about that unfortunately.

Ofcourse it is not the only reason. I believe it because the theism is the most proven theory in the history of the world. Not a single thing contradicts it. The most briliant people around the world were absolutely sure theism is flawless. I think almost all of them.

You just asked what God? I told - you the special and the Only one that makes him distinct.

You asked a tricky question and you had tricky answer.

Later on you say something that I have not said. Wow. How sincere is that?

What I think of Allah? It is a false zaratrustrian moon god. You can find it if you search a bit. Do you even know what most of the Quran is? It is just a Bible that was gutted out and rewritten to fit the needs of their people... How Godly is that? The other part is some silly ought to have and history of the arab nation. It is not just my opinion - find out about it.

What I think about muslims? Children of the error just as much as every religious nutjobs.

Speaking about muslim - do you know it is a muslim who first had the idea about evolution? It was XIII century or so If I am not mistaken. They - Im speaking about muslims were 100% fine with it.

Almost no religion. Actually I think none says anything wrong about evolution. So do not construct a strawmen ok? They love this additional mythology.

Christ requires no religion.

You are deeply confused by this neo-ateistic ignorant pop-culture in your terms you are using.

Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is what explains the fact.
Religious beliefs contradicts the theory of evolution.

Definitely evolution is a hoax. I have no doubt whatsoever. The world is not 6000 yrs old (has to be billions) . The "let there be light " is the 6000yrs ago.

Oh hey, didn't see your reply. So, let me get this straight. Scripture, according to which a god says it is the only god, is evidence enough for you to decide whether a god is the God? Because this deity of yours says it is the only one, it is? Did I get this right? Because if so, I wonder what you think of Allah. In the Quran it's frequently stated that Allah is the only god and that there is no god other than him. Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God. So, from your point of view, could it also have been Allah that created everything? Really curious to read your answer.

Ok. Thanks. But how would you prove it is not the way I have told you that it could be? It could be a reverse engineering like with the car. You could make a car faster if you would scrap everything and leave only engine and the wheels.

Why are you so sure that the yeast living in the lower sugar enviroment gives any new information? Maybe it is just a decrease of information making some function of life weaker in order for the other to be stronger? It is like saying - we have created a man so full of energy and vigour, because we had cut off half of his brain. No wonder - you made his brain half dependend on energy that he could spend elsewhere.

Do not get me wrong. I do not want to be picky at all costs. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Ofcourse you can always argue with that, that it does not leave the room to argue. Go ahead.

Ok you give me materials to read I will give you them as well and lets comment them ok? Why should I waste my time if you are not wasting yours?

Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John Sanford,
In the Beginning Was Information by Dr. Werner Gitt
The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine


Ooookkk..... You duplicated the amount of existing genes... How had that make any new information? It just made more of the same. I do not see what are you implying more of the same is something new?

Do not get shy. Im just asking questions.


But that one is interesting but if understand it right - the mutation just stops some enzymes to form the heart. So forming the heart is information that is blocked by some enzyme.

Is it increase in information? According to their sources ummm rather not as they say that formation of the heart is stopped by some process, so one should just stop the stopping and you have made what you want.

You would think I am picky maybe...... well...... no. I actually want to know the truth and the truth is sad to you. It is not a new information since it need to be stopped. It is like a guy that wants to run and the other is holding him up. If you would make one guy that is holding up not to hold you decrease the number of people and not give any more people.

Explain it to me. Maybe I had read that wrongly - it was highly technical language in the link they had given.


A cluster protein is like a cluster of LDL cholesterol. Technicly for the sake of the lab purposes you can name it something else, but it is still the same thing, but it for some reason - probably oxidation - had clustered. If one would say to me that making sick animal with increased oxidation is a good thing I would think he is probably mad. I am assuming those scientists are not mad.




Theory of evolution claims that the changes cannot go backward. So did the "evolution" sciences had just disproven the evolution claims? Seems like they did. It destroyed almost the whole premise of evolution being vaild.

Those evolutionists must stick to one version. In the law, if many witnesses would say different version of the same story, that would mean their stories:

you know what.

It does not mean it is impossible I could understand where are you coming from and I agree. Evolution might be possible, but well... Seems like it is not true. I might be wrong tho.