Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
The Hoax Called Evolution
**Preface **
The sole objective of this book is to present a purely factual, scientific approach in regards to the “Theory of Evolution”. There will be no mention in any of the following pages of Creationism, philosophy, theology or religion. It is senseless to approach this topic in any way other than pure science. For those that believe in a Divine origin for the existence of our world there is no need for scientific proof. For those that do not believe in “supernatural” causes for our physical world, “proofs” provided by Scriptures or philosophical exegeses are meaningless.

Anyone read this book? Comments?
 
I believe I’m seeing a trend in your submission topics.
 
Yes, it’s such a big hoax that no one has been able to prove it wrong.
 
The link didn’t work. Looks like it has 2 URL’s running into each other.

The requested URL /www.evolutionhoax.com/Legalproceeding.pdf was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
 
What I would like to see is Mr. Conleigh question and debate a real evolutionary scientist and not a fake transcript that was made for the purpose of dramatic impact in an attempt to add validity.

At the beginning it says "The following is a transcript of a fictitious legal proceeding in which Jonathan Conleigh, attorney for the Plaintiff, questions an evolutionary scientist about the “Theory of Evolution”.

It’s pretty easy to write in a fictional character in a story to look like an idiot when you’re trying to prove your own point or make it more dramatic.

Has Conleigh participated in any evolutionary debates? I wasn’t able to find anything on google.

While I haven’t read the book I did find some reviews on it which say the book basically boils down to life being too complicated to have evolved which is really nothing I haven’t heard before.
 
j1akey said:
What I would like to see is Mr. Conleigh question and debate a real evolutionary scientist and not a fake transcript that was made for the purpose of dramatic impact in an attempt to add validity.

At the beginning it says "The following is a transcript of a fictitious legal proceeding in which Jonathan Conleigh, attorney for the Plaintiff, questions an evolutionary scientist about the “Theory of Evolution”.

It’s pretty easy to write in a fictional character in a story to look like an idiot when you’re trying to prove your own point or make it more dramatic.

Has Conleigh participated in any evolutionary debates? I wasn’t able to find anything on google.

While I haven’t read the book I did find some reviews on it which say the book basically boils down to life being too complicated to have evolved which is really nothing I haven’t heard before.
Click to expand...
I agree he did a good job of humiliating the fictitious evolutionary scientist. 😉
 
That’s just it, anyone can humiliate a fictcious character. How about someone that can speak for themselves though and not just have words fed in a fake debate.
 
From the pdf:
Is it a fact that all species of plants and animals on earth evolved from inorganic
chemical compounds, beginning with a prebiotic mixture of water, methane,
ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide?
Click to expand...
The appears to be talking about abiogenesis which is outside of the scope of evolution. And one would be be hard pressed to find any mainstream scientist who supports the notion that inorganic chemical compounds can evolve.

No need to look any further. It’s obvious the author is a moron.
 
j1akey said:
That’s just it, anyone can humiliate a fictcious character. How about someone that can speak for themselves though and not just have words fed in a fake debate.
Click to expand...
This is a legitimate means of making a point. If it can be shown that the information used by both ‘sides’ is accurate, then why not? A single writer writes a play and puts words into everyone’s mouths to make his point, how is this different?

Peace,
Ed
 
cerad said:
From the pdf:

The appears to be talking about abiogenesis which is outside of the scope of evolution. And one would be be hard pressed to find any mainstream scientist who supports the notion that inorganic chemical compounds can evolve.

No need to look any further. It’s obvious the author is a moron.
Click to expand...
No. It is not outside the scope. To simply allow as a “given” that life occurred by some non-God process is bad speculation at best.

Peace,
Ed
 
40.png
edwest2:
This is a legitimate means of making a point. If it can be shown that the information used by both ‘sides’ is accurate, then why not? A single writer writes a play and puts words into everyone’s mouths to make his point, how is this different?
Click to expand...
The difference is that plays tell a story and people act in them and watch them for entertainment purposes. What the author here is basically saying is “you don’t have 100% of all the answers, therefore my proofless idea must be right.”

Also as he’s acting as a lawyer in this thing he points the questions in the direction that he wants them to go and in a way as to get the answer he wants to make his point. It’s a tactic. It doesn’t actually prove or disprove anything. All it does is show that he knows how to ask questions that result in the answers he happens to think an actual person would give based on his perspective of the situation. I asked for something that disproves evolution and I get 8 pages of a guy pretending to be a lawyer.
 
j1akey said:
The difference is that plays tell a story and people act in them and watch them for entertainment purposes. What the author here is basically saying is “you don’t have 100% of all the answers, therefore my proofless idea must be right.”

Also as he’s acting as a lawyer in this thing he points the questions in the direction that he wants them to go and in a way as to get the answer he wants to make his point. It’s a tactic. It doesn’t actually prove or disprove anything. All it does is show that he knows how to ask questions that result in the answers he happens to think an actual person would give based on his perspective of the situation. I asked for something that disproves evolution and I get 8 pages of a guy pretending to be a lawyer.
Click to expand...
No. I’ve read about a lot of plays that raised important points about important issues over the years. All plays are not just about entertainment.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
No. It is not outside the scope. To simply allow as a “given” that life occurred by some non-God process is bad speculation at best.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The ignorance demonstrated by statements such as these is truly overwhelming. But consistent with a belief in invisible sky people.
 
cerad said:
The ignorance demonstrated by statements such as these is truly overwhelming. But consistent with a belief in invisible sky people.
Click to expand...
You like this better? Everything came from nothing?
 
buffalo said:
You like this better? Everything came from nothing?
Click to expand...
Of course we didn’t come from nothing! The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us 5 minutes ago with intact memories so we’d just think we were older. Or was it Zeus? Or Oden? Or Aliens? Or maybe we’re in the Matrix??

It’s fun to hypothesize, but it always comes down to the reality that we don’t know. We may never know… because we don’t know how to find evidence for or against creation besides using pure rationale and our preconceived notions about what we think it should have been - neither of which are acceptable. Evolution on the other hand, we actually have evidence for regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
 
liquidpele said:
It’s fun to hypothesize, but it always comes down to the reality that we don’t know. We may never know… because we don’t know how to find evidence for or against creation besides using pure rationale and our preconceived notions about what we think it should have been - neither of which are acceptable. Evolution on the other hand, we actually have evidence for regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Click to expand...
And God knew this and thus He came to meet man through Revelation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top