Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 87. (Read 108046 times)

Well, I'm sorry I'm telling lies instead of facts. - This is how you sound.

Exactly. Your ignorance about evolution, and your unwillingness to learn.

The failure of evolution is in two parts:
1. All the foundational evolution scientists always say in their basic, foundational evolution papers, wording to the effect of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibly, probably," etc.  This means that they do not know, and that they do not have proof;
2. All the scientists and people who build on this foundation of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., are saying that they don't know and don't have proof, right along with the foundational papers they build on..

That's all there is for evolution. There is "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., and those who base their stuff on the "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc.

There is no proof that says "definitely," that is not based on "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc.

Forget it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Like?


Well Im sorry I am not peer-reviewed. Go read the peer-review please.

It is worth noting the word "kind" is a completely nonsense term, made up by creationists, that has no bearing whatsoever on proper scientific taxonomy. Not surprising that you would use it, since we know you don't understand science at all.

The bible has an extreme amount of scientific errors, I wouldn't call that god inspired.

If reality would prove me otherwise I would have revise my beliefs. True.

Yeah ok. Lets just assume a John Doe had said - you will find an envelop there and there and you would find a money there. When you would - You could assume that John Doe could exist because his words were true.

He ofcourse doesn't have to exist - but someone actually did. So ok. God might not exist. But for a God imposter who may wrote what it is assumed to be God inspired - it makes a very good impression that the person that wrote it had amazing insight into everything and that person wanted to share that with us.

Call him what ever you like. It could be just Moses... but it is highly unlikely that is was just Moses. Moses and mister x - that you yourself find laughable - Im not sure why.

I will talk about evolution soon but let me just point out some funny comments you just made.

''And as long as reality is proven otherwise I have no reason to believe God has lied here.'' You have no reason to believe he is right either, in fact you have no reason to believe god exists in the first place.

''I believe it is true because it is a reality. Just because God have said so just make it super awesome that its true.'' What can you even say about this, not much really. I'm just laughing a bit.

Yes. Only specialised and adapted to different type of enviroment I would say more - they are all cats or felines or how ever you want to call all of those organism that can produce offsprings. Ofcourse you can call them different species. Why not? But what usefulness in that? It just complicates the matter. If two organism produce the offspring like caucasian human male and aborigin human female - altough looks a lot differently in many respects it is still a human. I have no reason to believe a human will cease to be human - ever.

 That is what the Bible says as well. I know you can say OMG he is talking about the Bible again. Im just saying that it is in line with reality that the organisms that can bring forth from themselves life - are the same kind.

And as long as reality is proven otherwise I have no reason to believe God has lied here. It is very much in line with reality.

Ofcourse it is not the reason I believe creationism. I believe it is true because it is a reality. Just because God have said so just make it super awesome that its true. Ofcourse you can say you do not have to believe in science. Actually yes you do have to believe they play fair.

There is no point trying. He does not understand and refuses to learn.

So what? Are you saying a lion and a tiger are the same species? The point is that they are different species, that's the argument. Different species may naturally interbreed (called hybridization) but they are still different species.

Saying that they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed is saying nothing, that's not an argument against my evidence.

Cannot be convinced to mate? Yeah well... lion and tiger is not easily convinced to mate. What argument is that? They can make offspring. Does Jackal would want to mate the dog? Not likely. They would rather bite their heads off for eachother yet - they can make offsprings.

About the website not religious. Im sorry no. I have non. The odds are against the truth in todays world so you have to be filled with Holy Spirit to even want the truth...

''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed''  As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry.

Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#Speciation

So in other words... one have to be in the league with the big fishes otherwise you do not want to listen to him. Learn more about the peer-review and you will know it is not easy to have if your ideas is not inline with someone who might not like what you say. It is a political tool most of the time.

Im interested in arguments - you are interested in a bureucracy that you call facts. If you call only bureucracy being a fact, than good luck - im not a bureucrat. Wrong address.

I realise now you don't understand science at all, but this is particularly hilarious. Peer reviewed research is the highest quality of evidence that exists.

You are accusing me of only being interested in facts.

While this is true, it is hilarious that you would destroy your own argument by admitting that I am interested in the facts while you are not.

Every monkey who was walking around is human already. And evolution is also already happen to our species. This question is very strange and obvious to answer.

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.


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.

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".

''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

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...

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.