Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 84. (Read 108165 times)

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. And that it is basis to some "sciences" with the evolution or evolutionary in it.

You know? One can make a studies based on world of warcraft you know? It could be made science if one would really want that. The science of economy of the world or warcraft based on the Micheal Jackson.

And one can even make the argument that the world of warcraft is true because people are playing it. Yeah... it is somewhat real... So what?

It have its uses because someone had made the research that the increase of mana of the character could increase the happiness of the player.

Not one of the experiments produces amino acids in the way necessary for life. In fact, while some of the experiments produce amino acids necessary for life, they destroy some of the other amino acids necessary for life, at the same time, in the process of their making. This shows that life couldn't come about by random amino acid formation. Or do you have proof by actually making life from a bunch of amino acids?

Actually, nothing became anything else. We don't have any proof for it... at least not in the way that evolutionists suggest.

Like the post above this one, the need for proof is in the finding of something. Since there is no proof for evolution, and since all the evidence can fit things other than evolution (adaption), so far...

Evolution is a hoax.

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?

I have explained it to you why 2008 cut off. Im sorry. I cannot make it easier. Ask someone else to explain that to you...

Multiple other are not Miller Urey experiment... do not ran away from the answer. Lets just finish the initial talk.

I play stupid word games? I just presented you a concise reason why you do it yourself. Listen.... Find someone to explain it to you what I had wrote ok? Because you are clearly unable to understand me.


Pick 5 hardest species...... Ofcourse I gave up not because it is unable to do - but is very much time consuming and the answers are on the internet. All of those were debunked.

I still cannot fathom why you are yet again caught up with 2008 as some arbitrary cut off.

Here are the facts:

Miller-Urey produced amino acids.
Multiple other experiments have also produced up to 33 amino acids.
You have failed to produce any valid criticism or evidence to the contrary, therefore these facts stand.
Argument is over.

You can play stupid word games all day long, claiming scientists "changed the definition of specie", but it doesn't change the facts.
Evolution is a fact, and you have failed to even come close to proving otherwise.

My role was not to discredit the papers. You see? You misrepresent reality again. My role was to present that what you show is not what you speak about.


Not? You said Miller experiment said it made 25 amino acids. You have not admitted that it didnt. You should. The truth is the experiment produced 5 amino acids. You have not admitted that only shred of evidence about 25 acids being in the same experiment are the vials in 2008. You should because that is the truth.

You choose to change the subject, pretend not to understand me, change the definition of THE SAME EXPERIMENT. You had throw me other experiments and you had wrongly claimed that it was the same experiment. When it clearly was not the same experiment for anyone having the ability to read.

When I have presented that ok. You are right - it is 25 amino acids, but it is a very uncritical to assume it is truth without seeing a redo of the experiments. The experiment exactly representing what they claim.

And contrary to what you say - that is what scientific theory claim. In order for an experiment to be succesfull it must claim what is claimed by the hypothesis. The hypothesis should be - the vial spectrography should be exactly the same as the experiment of Miller should be - by the exact same way as he had done it in order to prove the vials to be trully the left overs from the initial experiments.

You then showed me the experiments that was before 2008. That is logically impossible to make sense. Since the hypothesis to show the validity of the vials could not be written when scientist have not even knew about any leftover vials from Miller experiment.

And the post 2008 experiments are using the vials themselves and not checking if those vials are legitimate and ressemble the possible samples of initial experiment.


No I have not forgotten. They changed the definition of specie. I will soon give you a detailed answer about that.

If I remember the Astargath had gave me this link. It is somewhere here in this topic. I had disprove the validity of 10th... and gave up. Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them? Why? You will not change your mind. Pick some of them. You choose - so choose the hardest to disprove.

But you have not proved me wrong. You have not proved a single thing.





So you've already forgotten the list of 50 or so I gave you yesterday?




You have failed to discredit a single one of the multiple papers I gave you, therefore you must also believe it is true.

You do not understand there is no such thing as counter-evidence. There could be the evidence to the contrary, or evidence that your statements are not true - a counter statements. I do not have to be right in order to prove you wrong. God does not have to exist in order for evolution not to exist. You do not understand logic my friend. The school has failed you. You should ask for a refund.

Mountains of evidence? Ok I agree. But for what? For natural selection and adaptation? Yeah there shit tons of it. The evidences for new specie that is separataed aka - could not breed with the specie he orignated from? There is no a single one.

Evidence for availability of abiogenesis? Veeeeeeeery shady to say the least. You only prove that - noone has cought you on the lie yet.

Evidence for almost claiming what you claim - ring species? Yeah if you change the language and definitions - you have evidences you can get away with it.

All you evolutions have evidences are word games. You name things the things they are not and that way you prove you can violate the rules of language and get away with it. Yes you have a tons of evidence for you inpunity in that regard.

Doesn't make him wrong either. You are indeed deluded, you wont accept any evidence, you didn't even respond to his question. Do you agree on the spontaneous production of amino acids or not, stop rambling.

I have mountains of evidence supporting my position. You have repeatedly failed to discredit any of it or provide any counter-evidence of your own.

That makes me right.

No my friend you dont understand the process... You repeat the experiment wheter it is boring or not. It is either succesfull or not.

If you make another experiment it is not the same experiment . It is a rules of language and scientific methology uses rules of language and logic. Scientific theory cannot violate the rules of logic.


Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right.

You've made it abundantly clear you don't understand the scientific process or scientific terminology. You can stop repeating the same incorrect point over and over again. It's boring.

Now, if you would like to actually disprove any of the studies or offer some of your own evidence, rather than squabbling about terminology, I'm listening. If not, I'll assume that you agree with me regarding the spontaneous production of amino acids.

Again this is wrong. Logic implies something is wrong or right. It cannot be almost right because someone is wrong. Do you even understand such a simple rules of truth? Just because I might be wrong does not make YOU RIGHT? Ok? Or maybe you are not interested in being right....

But the evidence for creationism, we are still waiting.

Those are wrong premises. You cannot assume the changed experiments are the same experiments... Repeated means repeated. Should I give you dictionary? It means making the same once again.........

You have just a big problems with words.... You need better dictionaries. You cannot say something is repeated when it is not repeated.... clearly........

Maybe they taught you wrong that words can be interpreted as you please but that makes unable to communicate with the outside world ok?

I dont know what they have taught you - but that is clearly violating the rules of logic and language.

As I explained above, I was using general scientific terminology, and it was my mistake for assuming you understood that.

changed experiment is not the same experiment. Failed experiment is not the same as succesful experiment. If one denies a simple logical and language constructs like you do - there is no point in even talking to such a person because he is illogical.

If one denies language and his rules, you cannot convince him to stick to rules of logic and language using the language and logic that you constantly violate by calling things the same when they are not the same.

It was not a lie to point out that you do not understand the scientific process.