Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 90. (Read 108046 times)

Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ It was an experiment with a failed premise. And yet you say the what you call experiments with successful premise of reaching 20 amino acids are based on this experiment? How? If one is a failure and the other is supposed success? Those are clearly not the same thing. By their definition.

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? It was not disproven to not produce the 5 amino acids. It was re-examined not to produce 5 amino acids, in a scientific theory - to disprove it they would have to redo the experiment exactly how it was intentionally made - that you failed to deliver that they did. If the problem was the aparature to find the traces of amino acids - it should pose no problem the experiment should confirm their re-evaluation of experiment. That is so simple as that...... What don't you understand?

Changed experiment is NOT THE SAME EXPERIMENT......... FFS!!!!


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.

Again, I assumed you understood that experiments that are repeated and redone are generally modified in some small ways to prove some new points. There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved. This is basic science 101. Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.

My original points still stand, however. There are literally hundreds of experiments of different early Earth conditions, all producing amino acids. You have failed to discredit this in any way shape or form.


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.

Actually they're still monkeys because they could still survive their environment with the genetic mutation they still have. Much like the crocodile, it's design is from the basic dinosaur's but still they didn't become birds at all. Much like how we breed toy dogs but there are still wolves. The reason a species survives because they could still adapt to their environment. Evolution actually explains all these. I just hope we don't put creationism into this.

It's really not and you never proved that evolution is a hoax. You are like notbatman, you think somehow evolution is a global conspiracy for some unknown reason.

No... It is not me who fail to discredit. It was you failed to provide it and you called redoing the experiment when you showed just different experiments. You failed to stay on track and you manipulated the reader - of my credibility when it was you who was ought to be thought what is to redo the experiment.

It is you who fails to recognize what is science and what is experiment and what is the need of critical inquiry when it comes to science.

You told me you had the proves they had redone the experiments when the scientific experiment are ought to have the repeatability. You seem to don't know what that is.

You seem to be fine with the antiscientific premise that it is ok for an experiment to give the different result each time. It is not the same experiment if it gives the different results. If the results are somehow different one as a scientist should be extremely cautious why. And you just bash me for being cautious - when that is what scientific premise is all about - being critical and cautious.

Failing to see that - you call me in the whole dialogue not knowing how science works when it is you who do not event understand what is an experiment and how to redo it.

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 call others - non scientific, because they have that values and they do not. Such a behaviour would be mind blowing, if that would not be so often in a carnal human mind without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

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 the re-examination of experiment and they get the right result - the most recent is being thought to be the truth, so people ignore the others. 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... until someone would have enough courage and support to prove it is wrong, but it would mean nothing if noone would be willing to publish it.

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 remind me of Nazis, 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.......

The earth was made in 6 days  YES he got tired on the 7th day so we all get to rest ..

Evolution in Action: Ring Species - YouTube
Video for salamander evolution▶ 3:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI
17 Sep 2007 - Uploaded by phoenixshade3
This video presents to the layman an example of evolution as an ongoing process: The Ensatina salamanders ..

Have you ever thought maybe religion was always meant to be WHY you ask..
Well maybe the earth programmed us to have religion so we could kill each other thus lowering the population thus keeping the earth lower of humans ..

You are programmed to eat ? so why do you put food to your mouth because your programmed to eat .
So maybe religion was always meant to be so the population could kill each other because if you look around we humans act like a cancer to the earth..

Don't you think it's crazy to be killing each other over something that's not there?..
So maybe the earth programmed human brains to squabble over NOTHING to lower the population ..

Imagine if we never had wars how much would this planet have on it's back ..

As bitcoin evolved       So what about the power consumption   

Evolution is fact      EARTH MADE US ..So worship the earth if you likes because the earth is your creator ..
I just find it very strange how people can kill each other over something that's not there      VERY MAD humans indeed  ..

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.

Of course you are going to bring religion into it. You have to. The whole of evolution that is not hoax is simply religion.

This topic is the hoax part. Start proving evolution with something that is more than political science. You can't. Evolution scientists have been trying for a couple hundred years (almost), with failure after failure. Forget it.

Evolution is a hoax.

The start of the proof for creationism is showing the fact that evolution is a hoax. The rest of the proof is for a different topic.

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.

Go make up another story. We're getting tired of this one. Why? 'Cause evolution is a hoax, just like any other story you make up.

The reference to the meteorite was to explain that the amino acids created by the experiment were also found on samples taken from the meteorite, suggesting the process of spontaneous amino acid formation is not localised to Earth. The meteorite was in no way involved in the experiment.

You don't even understand the papers you are attempting to discredit.

I think I know what might be wrong with the 1974 experiment - It might involve meteorite as it is mentioned in the abstract.

So yeah if you throw a piece of rock that you imagine what it might have - you eventually imagine the result.

The level of aggresiveness on the level of evolutionist part is staggering. Could you guys chill out? It is really unpleasant to read that unjust things about me. You are really agressive.

Yeah but, you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence yet. That's the problem with people like you, extremely skeptical about evolution but you believe a supernatural being created everything in 7 days, what a world we live in.

You should start with that. I have no idea what is wrong with this one. It could be as well right. They changed the parameters and they added CH4 and NH3, N2 and hydrogen, as far as I am aware and maybe something else as well... Maybe that had make things the way it went. For the moment I have no idea if that is an ok things to add to the atmosphere. I was just commenting on the original Miller-Uriel experiment. It is not the original one ok?

My doubts were definatly not unreasonable because previous experiments and most of them have not been qualified to make enough amino acids. And 2008 one is fishy. This 1974 seems legit.... I don't have any idea... Maybe it is because of some additional assumptions.

Additionally - it is not a redo of a Miller-Uriel experiment because they alterated it. So I was not wrong and Im not qualified to say if this experiment you made is done properly. Neither do you I presume.

Its still fishy but at least some scientists have put their names and careere to risk in that 1974 study.

Is this a serious question?

That's your issue? That despite me linking 10 papers (and there being hundreds more available) that show amino acids being produced in early earth conditions, one study made 8 and another made 25? You REALLY don't understand science, do you?

Anyway, here's a paper that shows the production of 33 amino acids:

Miller SL. The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. Origins of Life 5, 1974.

Can't wait to hear what you decide is wrong with this one.

It takes a little more time because we cannot just make stuff up. For us 25 is 25 and not from 0 to 100.

It takes courage and wisdom to say - I don't know. Do you have guts to say that?

When are you providing proof of creationism?

I have proven your research that you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.


Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro.


Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious.

Good luck in your scientific explorations . You will need it. You will need it a lot.

I appreciate your effort but it is indeed close to impossible to convince a creationist. The only few times him and badecker came up with some examples why evolution is impossible were:

''Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics'' Which is simply wrong
''The mathematical impossibility of evolution'' Which was also just wrong
Also 99% of their links are from a few religious websites. They also never provide a single piece of evidence that supports creationism other than hur durr god did it.