Evolution is a hoax - page 83. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 12:46:12 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 12:30:29 PM

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says.

This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

Quote

'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you.

Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here:

http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/

Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 12:30:29 PM

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 12:30:29 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 12:25:16 PM

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources......... Only because the creationist say something is your reason to dismiss it? No wonder that you believe in evolution as you dismiss any evidence on the contrary...

All you people do is referring to ad hominem. Thats all you do.

I knew it would be pointless you would dismiss everything without arguing with it. If you would want other debunks just ask me... I see you just does not want to hear the other side of the story don't you?

49 still to go - if you would only wish to know... Mountain of evidences awaits...

''Cichlids provide scientists with a unique perspective of speciation, having become extremely diverse in the more recent geological past.''
''Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348''

''Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

That was until the late forties, when two brand new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species looked very similar to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. Evolution had created a new species that could reproduce, but that could not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it evolved.

Evolution naysayers aren’t keen on this example, because, rather than genetic changes occurring to create a new organism, this particular change relied on polyploidy – a doubling up of the current DNA. Therefore, because no new genetic information was created, evolution deniers will not count this as a “win” for evolution.

However, a new species that can not mate with the original species was indeed created. So it is what it is. A new species was born, thanks to evolution.''

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 12:25:16 PM

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources......... Only because the creationist say something is your reason to dismiss it? No wonder that you believe in evolution as you dismiss any evidence on the contrary...

All you people do is referring to ad hominem. Thats all you do.

I knew it would be pointless you would dismiss everything without arguing with it. If you would want other debunks just ask me... I see you just does not want to hear the other side of the story don't you?

49 still to go - if you would only wish to know... Mountain of evidences awaits...

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

Lemayilleur

copper member

Activity: 504

Merit: 100

If evolution really happened, to the present time in the annals of fossils we would find abundant evidence of changes of one species into another. But, despite the fact that "in museums around the world is stored about a hundred million fossils, carefully catalogued and identified", porter Kier (Porter Kier), "New Scientist", January 15, 1981, p. 129

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 12:14:57 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 12:09:10 PM

I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.

YES. It only took me asking you thirteen times. I eagerly look forward to you presenting some evidence.

Ok.... So I will just do one specie at a time from your rich mountain of knowledge ok?

Quote

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

Quote

de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.

Quote

That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution8,9 reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.10

Quote

Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275–285, July 1943, genetics.org/cgi/reprint/28/4/275. On page 278 Davis writes:
In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.

Thats just an example

More? There are all 50 debunked on the internet - just use google......

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 12:09:10 PM

I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.

YES. It only took me asking you thirteen times. I eagerly look forward to you presenting some evidence.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 12:05:21 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.

I see. You have some knowledge that all the world's best scientists don't, but you can't be bothered to explain it. Makes sense. Roll Eyes

For the twelfth time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.

No not just me... all creationists know its a hoax I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.

You seem to not understand the importance of definition. It is very important how someone define what. If you define specie because some organisms differ from one another there is no reason why not to call asians not human. They were when people took evolution a lot more serious than now. Now everybody knows asians are as much humans as we are. Why they say that? Because we produce offspring.

And when it comes to lion and tiger - they both produce offspring they change their minds.... and call it hybrydisation with telling a lies that they are infertile. They are fertile it was proven true that they are fertile when some of them is south america or asia had run away.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.

I see. You have some knowledge that all the world's best scientists don't, but you can't be bothered to explain it. Makes sense. Roll Eyes

For the twelfth time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 09:54:59 AM

So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you Roll Eyes

For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.

I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.

You must understand that the definition of classical sense - separation as a lost of abiity to reproduce inside the specie is not the same as the definition that evolutionists use. You dont seem to understand that.... Im not surprised you dont. You seem to dont understand a lot of things I wrote to you.

If you see it as a not a big deal than ok... It is just your opinion. It is a barrier that evolution have not penetretated and is safe to assume - it never will. But if that thing have not happened that a specie had lost the ability to breed in the specie they previously could - that is very safe to assume it is impossible like God have said the genesis.

It is not because God have said so - it is because reality say so. Just because God said so makes the God word credible.

angelinakorenovskaya

newbie

Activity: 59

Merit: 0

Why not use google instead of saying the stupidest shit ?

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: BADecker on February 26, 2018, 07:53:41 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 01:26:50 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2018, 07:40:58 PM

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

Cool

Evolution is proven, do you have any evidence suggesting is a hoax?

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you Roll Eyes

For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote

So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.

Im saying there are 50 or so misunderstandings based on language tricks and deception. Here... Let me explain. Give me your world of warcraft speciments. Or are you scared?

You can give me the troll or a dwarf. The trolls are proven to have a lot of stamina. There are a lot of evidences that trolls can beat the dwarfs 1vs1 mountains of evidences.

No sorry... Im serious give me 5 of examples from you pile 50 from your mountain of evidences.

Quote

Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.

Countless? This 50? That you won't randomly select 5? I Actually answered to 5 of them myself in this topic. Now you search it... I have done all the works searching your clues.

I give you options to not blame me that 45 of your other speciation is right with the definition or contradict creationism so that it proves evolution. Pick them randomly.

Quote

deep ignorance about science

What is worse? Deep ignorance of science, or a deep ignorance of logic? I would say the latter, because science involves logic.

Quote

I'll consider this argument won.

Ok you won. Anything that makes you happy. You basicly say - I have won - therefore I ran away and I won't choose 5 species. It is like Mao Tsetung with his victory when he was retreating.

I agree - you and evolution are ment to be together. You have absolutely convinced me about that.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 07:37:45 AM

Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them?

So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.

Quote from: BADecker on February 26, 2018, 07:53:41 AM

nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else

Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.

I'm done with this argument. I have provided mountains and mountains of evidence which you have both failed to counter even once. The very fact you use words like "accident" and "random" shows that you have a deep, deep ignorance about science and evolution, and zero willingness to learn. You can play your word games and make stupid points about World of Warcraft and students as long as you like, but until I see a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, I'll consider this argument won.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 05:47:47 AM

Quote from: Astargath on February 26, 2018, 05:44:46 AM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 05:37:01 AM

Quote

There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved

Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?

Quote

Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......

IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.

So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.

It took a while of going in increasingly moronic circles, but we got there in the end. He finally accept the facts.

Also, if the past 30-ish posts taught us anything, it is that you will be waiting a loooong time for any creationist evidence whatsoever.

The thing that this thread is teaching us is, there isn't even one piece of proof for evolution. Do you have one? Show us.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Astargath on February 26, 2018, 05:44:46 AM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 05:37:01 AM

Quote

There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved

Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?

Quote

Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......

IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.

So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.

Standard troll practices. Twist the topic around so that the fact of evolution never having been prove in even one instance is hidden. Then make it look like the failure lies in something else that is anti-evolution.

I like how you go on and troll all around. Your trolling failures roll off your back like water off a duck. Yet you simply keep on going with more trolling. They must be paying you an awful lot so it doesn't even bother you to destroy any dignity you might have had.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 08:04:08 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 26, 2018, 07:53:41 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 01:26:50 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2018, 07:40:58 PM

But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.

So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.

Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?

Cool

One cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove God does not exist.

All I can say is that you lie some of the time, and sometimes you misguide, and sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes you do not understand something.

Theory of evolution exist.... ok.... That only mean of their craftiness because they bring no fruits thereof. There are no fruits of evolution. And being fruitless means falseness.

Yeah I know what they say - it was proven in software LOL (that is the most laughable I cannot even grasp the level of depravaty of the person having such an argument), in drugs... Well drugs proves to be false many times as well based on false statistics, and based on DNA studies... But Dna studies does not require evolution to even exist. So its all false hot air.

Quite correct. So far, evolution is one of the big hoaxes that has been foisted onto unsuspecting people. But it makes a lot of money for the universities, and for the people who are the leaders among those who go digging and grubbing in the dirt around the world.

Did you ever notice that a lot of the digging is done by students, who work for free, just so that they get a better grade at the university? But the treasures they find are kept by the university, or the team leader.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 26, 2018, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: Przemax on February 26, 2018, 02:45:49 AM

All you achieved is me wanting to puke how insencere a human being can be. I get the goose bumps once I see such a people that does not know the importance of honesty, critical thinking if it comes to science, having the importance to define the matters what they speak - the core values of a good scientist and others non scientific because they have that values.

I am just discouraged heavily to even want to show you how many logical error you had made. It would take a loooooong time and would achieve nothing, because people in this forum might be ignorant, so you appealing to their ignorance might have worked. Sadly. Know one thing... Every dirty tricks and every lie is seen by the almighty..... You will be really shocked in the end.....

And yes sadly - that might be called scientific if one makes experiment until finally they get the right result - the most recent is being thought to be the truth, so people ignore the others. I know. You can fake the results of the last experiment - that is from 2008. And if everyone would be discouraged from redoing the experiment - it sadly will be called a science. It would have nothing to do with honesty, truth and critical thinking, but it will sadly be called science...

You are right... It is scientific on paper. It defies and corrupts everything that science stands for, but if someone would be judged in court he could defend the case - that yes it is scientific on paper.

And every little evolutionist would call themselves scientist because they are only quoting the "scientific work" they had not lied themselves. Such a white washing resembles me of Nazi's that were just saying - I was only following orders... I didnt knew it was a fraud - I was only quoting orders.... I mean papers, without checking their vailidty. They wouldnt lie to me would they? Like nazis would say - they would not want any bad things would they?

If you are not disgusted by that...... What can I say.......

Incoherent rambling. Invoking Godwin's Law is widely accepted to mean you have lost the argument.

I would ask for maybe the tenth time (I've lost count) for you to provide a single shred of evidence for your position, but I know that you have none. Unless you can provide some new evidence, rather than just rambling nonsensically about the Nazis, this argument is over.

But since this is the evolution thread, and since evolution is the thing that has to be proven, show us some proof that is distinctly proof for evolution, and isn't potential proof for anything else. Amino acid talk for evolution is just that, a whole bunch of malarky talk. There isn't any proof that a bunch of amino acids could ever form life all by themselves. Scientists barely come close to making amino acids into life with all their best efforts. So, how could it ever happen by accident?

Cool

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 83. (Read 108165 times)