The theory of evolution is a false theory

[Luchito]

When was that?

Notice I said, "false theories". This means, this sad scenario has happened throughout history.

Let's use at random an old one, let's pick up Evolution.

The evolution theory you have learned today is not the one based on the "primitive and original" theory of past centuries. And you might argue that theories can be unpdated accordingly to new evidence. However, one thing is an update and a completely different thing is a change.

When you change the whole doctrine of a theory, then you have a new theory, not an updated one. For this reason is a huge mistake to say that the current theory of evolution is an updated theory of the Darwinian.

But, where Darwin obtained his information from?

Darwin himself inherited it from his grandfather, and his grandfather was following the ideas of his times. So let's continue.

The intellect in those years was congregated in Europe. France hosted lots of the brain people who discussed topics of all kinds at the Jardin as an example. Let's go there.

We have two main tendencies trying to explain the development of the species, one based on catastrophism and the other based on evolution. Cuvier was on the side of catastrophism and in this opportunity Geoffroy was the evolutionist. This is the end of 1700s.

-Each of William Smith's layers, correspond to a geological period. Fossils are found in each of them which do not occur in others. The layers do not overlap. One can even, as Smith has pointed out, use these fossils as guides to identify the separate geological periods.

-Obviously, and geology will be benefited by the fact. I still don't understand why that should be an argument against the evolution of the species.

-You really don't understand? Each ephoc has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance with those four plans that are clearly recognized in all periods.

-Well, how did it happen then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized included man, came last? There were not four plans of creation, but only a single general plan, in accordance with which animate beings had gradually evolved from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods.

This is the theory of evolution that Darwin inherited, and no wonder his natural selection copies the words of Geoffroy like plagiarism.

As Natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable* variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, original title of Darwin's work)

(*favorable, in American English)

Yup, the word evolution@v in the original theory was the right word to describe lower species becoming higher species. Not a technical term but a regular word found in the dictionaries of those times.

When the word "evolution" became a technical word meaning other than "from lower to higher, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex"?

The word "evolution" was changed in the title of the theory in question when it was discovered that the complete theory was a piece of crap, because evidence showed that such lower to higher was as false as a 13-dollar bill. The evolutionist found themselves trapped, so they tried to "manufacture" a new tendency, the unfamous "Neo Darwinian theory of evolution". It didn't work. They changed the meaning of the original "evolution" word as change from lower to high by a technical word that simply means "change", "change with no arrow".

Doing so they felt they were the total winners.

Do you know what? Even with their technical word meaning "change without arrow" evolutionists still dead wrong. Lol.

But such is food for another topic.

What I have posted for you is to show you how fraudulent evolutionists are, and for sure your brain has been brainwashed already to the point that you will deny until your last days that you were fooled, you were deceived, that you received lies by lots, manipulated news and assumed discoveries here and there. Same way I'm showing you the genesis of the evolution theory, I can debunk all the new arguments from them with solid evidence, read clearly, no with other theory or doctrines but solid evidence that they are always wrong whatever they do to make their theory right.

This is why if the theory of everything one day is said to be reached, that will be the theory of every lie, ha ha ha ha

 

[exchemist]

Notice I said, "false theories". This means, this sad scenario has happened throughout history.

Let's use at random an old one, let's pick up Evolution.

The evolution theory you have learned today is not the one based on the "primitive and original" theory of past centuries. And you might argue that theories can be unpdated accordingly to new evidence. However, one thing is an update and a completely different thing is a change.

When you change the whole doctrine of a theory, then you have a new theory, not an updated one. For this reason is a huge mistake to say that the current theory of evolution is an updated theory of the Darwinian.

But, where Darwin obtained his information from?

Darwin himself inherited it from his grandfather, and his grandfather was following the ideas of his times. So let's continue.

The intellect in those years was congregated in Europe. France hosted lots of the brain people who discussed topics of all kinds at the Jardin as an example. Let's go there.

We have two main tendencies trying to explain the development of the species, one based on catastrophism and the other based on evolution. Cuvier was on the side of catastrophism and in this opportunity Geoffroy was the evolutionist. This is the end of 1700s.

-Each of William Smith's layers, correspond to a geological period. Fossils are found in each of them which do not occur in others. The layers do not overlap. One can even, as Smith has pointed out, use these fossils as guides to identify the separate geological periods.

-Obviously, and geology will be benefited by the fact. I still don't understand why that should be an argument against the evolution of the species.

-You really don't understand? Each ephoc has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance with those four plans that are clearly recognized in all periods.

-Well, how did it happen then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized included man, came last? There were not four plans of creation, but only a single general plan, in accordance with which animate beings had gradually evolved from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods.

This is the theory of evolution that Darwin inherited, and no wonder his natural selection copies the words of Geoffroy like plagiarism.

As Natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable* variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, original title of Darwin's work)

(*favorable, in American English)

Yup, the word evolution@v in the original theory was the right word to describe lower species becoming higher species. Not a technical term but a regular word found in the dictionaries of those times.

When the word "evolution" became a technical word meaning other than "from lower to higher, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex"?

The word "evolution" was changed in the title of the theory in question when it was discovered that the complete theory was a piece of crap, because evidence showed that such lower to higher was as false as a 13-dollar bill. The evolutionist found themselves trapped, so they tried to "manufacture" a new tendency, the unfamous "Neo Darwinian theory of evolution". It didn't work. They changed the meaning of the original "evolution" word as change from lower to high by a technical word that simply means "change", "change with no arrow".

Doing so they felt they were the total winners.

Do you know what? Even with their technical word meaning "change without arrow" evolutionists still dead wrong. Lol.

But such is food for another topic.

What I have posted for you is to show you how fraudulent evolutionists are, and for sure your brain has been brainwashed already to the point that you will deny until your last days that you were fooled, you were deceived, that you received lies by lots, manipulated news and assumed discoveries here and there. Same way I'm showing you the genesis of the evolution theory, I can debunk all the new arguments from them with solid evidence, read clearly, no with other theory or doctrines but solid evidence that they are always wrong whatever they do to make their theory right.

This is why if the theory of everything one day is said to be reached, that will be the theory of every lie, ha ha ha ha

Are you American, then?

 

[Pinball1970]

This is why if the theory of everything one day is said to be reached, that will be the theory of every lie, ha ha ha ha

You are as clueless on the Theory of Evolution as you are Cosmology, that is very clear.
This is a science platform, try not to post idiotic nonsense.

 

[DaveC426913]

This discussion seems to have taken a turn toward conspiracies. Perhaps it should be moved or split off to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, where Luchito can Luchitosplain to us all what is in his giant brain that we all missed.

 

[James R]

The evolution theory you have learned today is not the one based on the "primitive and original" theory of past centuries.

That assertion could be disputed. It would come down to a debate over what "based on" is supposed to mean, and what "primitive" and "original" are supposed to mean. You haven't made any of those things clear in your assertion. But let's shelve this for now and move on.

And you might argue that theories can be unpdated accordingly to new evidence. However, one thing is an update and a completely different thing is a change.

When you change the whole doctrine of a theory, then you have a new theory, not an updated one. For this reason is a huge mistake to say that the current theory of evolution is an updated theory of the Darwinian.

For similar reasons, it's hard to unpack what your argument is here, or even if you've made an argument.

You haven't, for example, explained what an updated theory of "Darwinian" would look like, or why the modern evolutionary synthesis doesn't qualify, in your view.

But, where Darwin obtained his information from?

Does it matter? If, as you say, the modern theory of evolution has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, then Darwin's theory is irrelevant in the modern era. Right? Then why are you obsessed with attacking Darwin?

Darwin himself inherited it from his grandfather, and his grandfather was following the ideas of his times. So let's continue.

No, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you there. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was in no way "inherited from his grandfather". His grandfather, to my knowledge, published no such theory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We have two main tendencies trying to explain the development of the species, one based on catastrophism and the other based on evolution. Cuvier was on the side of catastrophism and in this opportunity Geoffroy was the evolutionist. This is the end of 1700s.

-Each of William Smith's layers, correspond to a geological period. Fossils are found in each of them which do not occur in others. The layers do not overlap. One can even, as Smith has pointed out, use these fossils as guides to identify the separate geological periods.

-Obviously, and geology will be benefited by the fact. I still don't understand why that should be an argument against the evolution of the species.

-You really don't understand? Each ephoc has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance with those four plans that are clearly recognized in all periods.

-Well, how did it happen then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized included man, came last? There were not four plans of creation, but only a single general plan, in accordance with which animate beings had gradually evolved from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods.

This is the theory of evolution that Darwin inherited, and no wonder his natural selection copies the words of Geoffroy like plagiarism.

Nothing in what you have quoted is a theory of evolution. Quite the opposite. The discussion questions what such a theory might conceivably look like - without suggesting any answers.

As Natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable* variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, original title of Darwin's work)

(*favorable, in American English)

[/QUOTE]
It would be good to read this in context.

Yup, the word in the original theory was the right word to describe lower species becoming higher species.

It is now understood that there are no "higher" and "lower" species. Are you aware of this, Luchito?

Not a technical term but a regular word found in the dictionaries of those times.

When the word "evolution" became a technical word meaning other than "from lower to higher, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex"?

Never. Modern biology has no concept of "higher" and "lower" species. Similarly, "worse" and "better" are relative terms in evolution that vary from one context to another. Complexity can be defined, but some care is needed. Evolution is not a straight line from "less complex" to "more complex".

The word "evolution" was changed in the title of the theory in question when it was discovered that the complete theory was a piece of crap...

You can look up "theory of evolution" on google. You'll get lots of hits. So, it seems that the theory is still identified using the word "evolution", despite your claim to the contrary.

Your asserting that evolution is "crap" has less weight than my asserting that your posts are crap. At least my assertion is backed by evidence and argument. In contrast, your criticism of evolution is just empty rhetoric, so far. There's no substance. Nothing that can be tested.

The evolutionist found themselves trapped, so they tried to "manufacture" a new tendency, the unfamous "Neo Darwinian theory of evolution". It didn't work. They changed the meaning of the original "evolution" word as change from lower to high by a technical word that simply means "change", "change with no arrow".

There was never an "arrow" to evolution in the sense that you assert.

By the way, "unfamous" is different from "infamous". Grab a dictionary an inform yourself.

Doing so they felt they were the total winners.

How do you know what they felt?

Do you know what? Even with their technical word meaning "change without arrow" evolutionists still dead wrong. Lol.

Another empty assertion. Lol.

What I have posted for you is to show you how fraudulent evolutionists are...

Huh?

You have demonstrated no fraud. Your assertions are empty.

I get that you're upset that evolution is a thing and that Creationism is a fraud, but pretending that it's the other way around won't help you. It will just make you angrier. You need to reconcile your thinking with reality. If you can do that, you'll be a much happier person, I assure you. And you won't feel like you have to tell lies all the time, in service to your belief system. You will be able to stop lying to yourself, too.

Same way I'm showing you the genesis of the evolution theory, I can debunk all the new arguments from them with solid evidence, read clearly, no with other theory or doctrines but solid evidence that they are always wrong whatever they do to make their theory right.

Another assertion. Are you going to start your debunking, or just keep asserting that you can do it?

Actions speak louder than words, Luchito.

 

[parmalee]

As Natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable* variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, original title of Darwin's work)

(*favorable, in American English)

Phew. I would have been completely lost here without this helpful note.

 

[Pinball1970]

when it was discovered that the complete theory was a piece of crap,

Damn it, that's another important lecture I missed.
It must have been after "I aint come from no monkey 2" and before "Athiests fink a pond turned into slime then a lizard 1."

 

[parmalee]

Damn it, that's another important lecture I missed.
It must have been after "I aint come from no monkey 2" and before "Athiests fink a pond turned into slime then a lizard 1."

That whole sentence is just bizarre:

"The word 'evolution' was changed in the title of the theory in question when it was discovered that the complete theory was a piece of crap, because evidence showed that such lower to higher was as false as a 13-dollar bill."

There's nothing "false" about a 13 dollar bill--I don't even know what that might mean. Fake, maybe, but not false. But if he had used the word "fake" it would somehow make even less sense than it already does: fake implies forgery, and that is not what is being alleged.

I feel like I could waste hours on that first post alone, and still get absolutely nowhere.

 

[Pinball1970]

That whole sentence is just bizarre:

His whole post on Evolution and Big Bang on the other thread are just pure idiocy. It never ceases to amaze me how many crazy misconceptions, misrepresentations, miscomprehension and outright lies these people manage to spew out regarding sciences they have no clue on.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Sounds like a resort to arguing semantics rather than about how evolution is understood to work - how it is named and whether the words mean what they mean. And, of course, with arguments from incredulity and heavy handed derision for other views and significantly for those who have dedicated their working lives using observation and reason to understanding how it works - how it has, how it does, how it will.

Meanwhile Life just keeps evolving, making variations, some that stick, some that don't, that, over billions of years have produced an astonishing variety of intricate forms that compete as well as cooperate, that includes much that is imperfect as well as much that appears optimised to an astonishing degree; frankly my sense of incredulity says to me it isn't - cannot be - deliberately designed, that no mind could conceive of and plan such a thing.

The awesome wonder of biochemistry that has become Life requires no magical miracles - it is a like a magical miracle all on it's own.

Those simplistic religious claims of intelligent agency being required look entirely inadequate, almost laughably simplistic in the face of the real world. But to have that abiding sense wonder for what is real co-opted by narrow minded religious fanatics to induce people to a narrow belief in what is not real - and claim credit for it - is dismaying and deeply disappointing to me.

As for life by chance... when elements and molecules are tiny and so abundant and the amount a whole planet has is so enormous and billions of years is such a long time that the numbers of chances are staggeringly enormous, the real wonder would be if the emergence of life out of it did not happen.

 

[river]

Evolution is valid theory . Evolution happens fast and slow . Genetics changes with each generation .