• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is evolution still teached, while it is clearly one big hoas?

Pin dÁr said:
lots of words there, but proof/evidence is lacking.
Click to expand...

First of all, five words do not in my opinion make for "lots of words". And as for the proof that we were getting back on track? Well the forum threat we're in is titled with the word "evolution", zyzygy posted an article about evolution...

...sounds like we were getting back on track to me.
 
Somerville said:
Oh, there is plenty of 'proof' and lots of 'evidence' but some folks are either incapable of understanding the data or simply refuse to accept said information.
Click to expand...

well, show it.
 
natsb said:
Battlestar Galactica explained it. :)

I for one, do not believe we are the only life in the universe. Therefore, it would not be impossible that we were planted given the unanswered gaps in the evolution theory.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Where did the planters come from?
 
Pin dÁr said:
here we go (AGAIN)

stephen-jay-goulds-quotes-7.jpg


read it well "The extreme rarity"of transitional forms in the fossil record"
Click to expand...

If evolution were false, there wouldn't be any transitional forms. He just admitted transitional forms exist, therefore a transition exists.
 
Pin dÁr said:
here we go (AGAIN)

stephen-jay-goulds-quotes-7.jpg


read it well "The extreme rarity"of transitional forms in the fossil record"
Click to expand...

Romer's gap. From 360 to 345 million years ago we have nothing in the way of fossils. That's the first bits of the Carboniferous Period.

So with the EXTREME RARITY of evidence of life between 360 and 345 MYA...does this mean that there was [smurf] all in the way of living beings back then? That life vanished 360MYA and then the process of life started back up again 15 million years later?

Oh wait...I'm using that "Modern Science" stuff again aren't I.
 
Pin dÁr said:
well, show it.
Click to expand...

The Pin program loop...

10 Poster: Here's the proof to support my claim
20 Pin: There is no proof because everything is fake
30 Poster: No, everything is NOT fake
40 Pin: Yes it is
50 Poster: Explain why you think that
60 Pin: I know everything is fake because I say so
70 Goto 10
 
Deuce said:
If evolution were false, there wouldn't be any transitional forms. He just admitted transitional forms exist, therefore a transition exists.
Click to expand...

No, they are RARE (personally I think there is NONE in reality) )while there must be more then millon, there aint

It really is one big hoax. and again why all the hoaxes in evolution? why? why? why? why? why?

Desperation I guess
 
Last edited:
gamolon said:
The Pin program loop...

10 Poster: Here's the proof to support my claim
20 Pin: There is no proof because everything is fake
30 Poster: No, everything is NOT fake
40 Pin: Yes it is
50 Poster: Explain why you think that
60 Pin: I know everything is fake because I say so
70 Goto 10
Click to expand...
why is it you don't read very well? ;)


About the evidence....
 
Pin dÁr said:
No, they are RARE (personally I think there is NONE in reality) )while there must be more then millon, there aint

It really is one big hoax. and again why all the hoaxes in evolution? why? why? why? why? why?

Desperation I guess
Click to expand...

So the source you posted is wrong.
 
Pin dÁr said:
No, they are RARE (personally I think there is NONE in reality) )while there must be more then millon, there aint

It really is one big hoax. and again why all the hoaxes in evolution? why? why? why? why? why?

Desperation I guess
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you a question. It's a question I've asked another in the Flat Earther thread.

Assuming that Modern Science is a hoax as you claim and it's all bull[smurf]...what's the point? The modern era of science started in the 1800s so that's about 200 years (give or take a few decades) of people all over the world in some huge global conspiracy to pull a huge arse con job on the whole of humanity.

That would involve huge sums of money and a huge arsed effort to keep the lies going and the "truth" suppressed.

What would the gains of that be? Considering that there is damn little out there in the world that isn't done for some personal gain (even people who do good say that they do good because it feels good to them...self gain)...what would the rewards of such a venture be that would be worth the effort?

Example. I do not believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy and that the US Government knew about it (please do not get into it with me on this thread...this is a topic for another thread and is only used as an example here in this one). But...

...the rewards of the conspiracy make sense. We go on a war-time economy which usually pulls countries out of recessions, we get the American People willing to go to war to stop an aggressor who if they won Europe would have possibly looked at us next...the gains make sense if the conspiracy truly existed. This is a CT that has a level of plausibility to it.

So back to the topic at hand...what's the reason that false science has for keeping this all going and what do they gain from it?
 
Hypnotoad said:
I'm going to ask you a question. It's a question I've asked another in the Flat Earther thread.

Assuming that Modern Science is a hoax as you claim and it's all bull[smurf]...what's the point? The modern era of science started in the 1800s so that's about 200 years (give or take a few decades) of people all over the world in some huge global conspiracy to pull a huge arse con job on the whole of humanity.

That would involve huge sums of money and a huge arsed effort to keep the lies going and the "truth" suppressed.

What would the gains of that be? Considering that there is damn little out there in the world that isn't done for some personal gain (even people who do good say that they do good because it feels good to them...self gain)...what would the rewards of such a venture be that would be worth the effort?

Example. I do not believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy and that the US Government knew about it (please do not get into it with me on this thread...this is a topic for another thread and is only used as an example here in this one). But...

...the rewards of the conspiracy make sense. We go on a war-time economy which usually pulls countries out of recessions, we get the American People willing to go to war to stop an aggressor who if they won Europe would have possibly looked at us next...the gains make sense if the conspiracy truly existed. This is a CT that has a level of plausibility to it.

So back to the topic at hand...what's the reason that false science has for keeping this all going and what do they gain from it?
Click to expand...

If you believe our conspiracy theorists then the answer is mind control. How spreading false science around could control our minds is never explained.
 
zyzygy said:
If you believe our conspiracy theorists then the answer is mind control. How spreading false science around could control our minds is never explained.
Click to expand...

The desire of the Illuminati to "mind control" the ordinary people, is why we have "chemtrails"
 
Somerville said:
The desire of the Illuminati to "mind control" the ordinary people, is why we have "chemtrails"
Click to expand...

A good litmus test that I use for Conspiracy Theories is this. Do the effects of the theories have an impact on the rich and powerful?

Cure for cancer? Rich and Powerful people get cancer <cough>Steve Jobs<cough>...so there's likely not a cure for cancer. Do the Rich and Powerful people breathe the air outside? Yes they do so it's not likely to be chemtrails.

Besides for that one, there was that period of time where no one flew anywhere. For two weeks so few aircraft flew that there was a measurable temperature shift from the lack of contrails in the sky. A drop of 4-6 degrees on average.

So if we were without the "chemtrails" for those days...why didn't more people wake up?
 
Just look at the mess (macro) evolution is in.

Hoaxes because they are desperate, lacking evidence, circular reasoning, and so on and so forth.


No wonder it is going down.
 
Hypnotoad said:
I'm going to ask you a question. It's a question I've asked another in the Flat Earther thread.
Click to expand...

ok, but to be clear I am no ; flat earher. so don't assoicate them with me. That is very cheap.

Assuming that Modern Science is a hoax as you claim and it's all bull[smurf]...what's the point? The modern era of science started in the 1800s so that's about 200 years (give or take a few decades) of people all over the world in some huge global conspiracy to pull a huge arse con job on the whole of humanity.
Click to expand...
yes.

That would involve huge sums of money and a huge arsed effort to keep the lies going and the "truth" suppressed.
Click to expand...

true. so?

What would the gains of that be? Considering that there is damn little out there in the world that isn't done for some personal gain (even people who do good say that they do good because it feels good to them...self gain)...what would the rewards of such a venture be that would be worth the effort?
Click to expand...

simple, there is a small group that wants to control us. But because the are few and we are many, they can't control us physically, Hence they control us,
by mind and our perception.One of the way is to have a false or very skewed 'science'',


Example. I do not believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy and that the US Government knew about it (please do not get into it with me on this thread...this is a topic for another thread and is only used as an example here in this one). But...
Click to expand...


First of all it is very very easy to show that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy and I will open athread about that, thank you!

...the rewards of the conspiracy make sense. We go on a war-time economy which usually pulls countries out of recessions, we get the American People willing to go to war to stop an aggressor who if they won Europe would have possibly looked at us next...the gains make sense if the conspiracy truly existed. This is a CT that has a level of plausibility to it.
Click to expand...


yes

So back to the topic at hand...what's the reason that false science has for keeping this all going and what do they gain from it?
Click to expand...

I amswered in the above replies.
 
Hypnotoad said:
A good litmus test that I use for Conspiracy Theories is this. Do the effects of the theories have an impact on the rich and powerful?


Cure for cancer? Rich and Powerful people get cancer <cough>Steve Jobs<cough>...so there's likely not a cure for cancer. Do the Rich and Powerful people breathe the air outside? Yes they do so it's not likely to be chemtrails.
Click to expand...

Fair question and I have asked the same question to insiders.


The answer is that 'they' have techniques to cure cancer etc, And I don't believe that Steve Jobs had cancer, I really think it to be a cover story.


Like nearly everything else in the mainstream-media..


So, in the end it doesn't effect them at all.






So if we were without the "chemtrails" for those days...why didn't more people wake up?
Click to expand...


what do you mean?
 
Pin dÁr said:
why all the hoaxes I asked?
Click to expand...

You posted a guy who says there are transitional forms, claiming this supports your argument. Then you claimed there are no transitional forms.

So you posted a source you believe is a lie. Why would you use that as a source?
 
Deuce said:
You posted a guy who says there are transitional forms, claiming this supports your argument. Then you claimed there are no transitional forms.

So you posted a source you believe is a lie. Why would you use that as a source?
Click to expand...

read it better. and there is more.



there are NO transitional fossils. macroevolution is a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom