Hmm, what is the alternative? Lets assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think its irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but its not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.
Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more soft species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.
These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?
Start a thread something like, "Alternatives to Evolution."
Evolution is not true because, among many other things, there is no random in nature. Everything operates through cause and effect. There are no random mutations. We might think that there are because of our inability to see most causes, directly. But science shows us more and more all the time that there are causes for everything.
You have a bunch of questions, many of which we don't have answers to, and never will until we can make a time viewer that can see into the past. All those questions would be there if evolution was real. The point isn't those questions. The point is that evolution is a hoax because we know reasons why it can't be real.
But, the biggest reason why evolution is a hoax is that we don't have even one proof for it, yet it is touted as being real.
Evolution is a hoax.

Im in disagreement with that. You always say that there is no proof for Evolution and it cant exist on account of C&E. If this is to be true, you will have to deal with the fossil record. Time is exceptional relevant to Evolution. Now while the fossil record in itself is not a direct proof that Evolution exists, the time frame they represent, is.
The fossil record doesn't show evolutionary change. If two fossils are almost the same, but are slightly different, how do you tell if they are or are not of the same family or grouping or species? After all, parents and their children are very different sometimes, right now, yet have no genetic difference that could be attributed to evolutionary change. Why not the fossil record? Suggesting evolution is guesswork.
The time frame is guesswork. Some of the scientists who wrote about how to tell the age of the earth or universe, even state that the time frame is a big guess... that it is only there so that we have a way to categorize things. We have no proof of billions of years. We can barely tell that things dated from 5,000 years ago are really 5,000 years old.
If your theory is to be true, of no Evolution, all these species, now as bones in the ground, must have started out at the same time. They certainly did not evolve from each other that you are sure of. So either there is many starts or they all started at the same time?
The fact that there is no evolution as stated in evolution theory, is not a theory. It is a fact that evolution is not a fact.
Why do creatures that have not evolved from each other, have to have started at the same time? Why could they not simply start at different times, caused by some force that we don't know about?
Why could creatures not have started at the same time? The fossil record merely shows that there were a lot more creatures and kinds of creatures in the ancient past. It says nothing about them having evolved from each other.
I can hardly find a more relevant question to an, Evolution is a hoax, thread. Time is a fundamental in Evolutionary theory, and if you are unable to explain how Dinosaurs relate to Human in the time frame, your theory has no merit whatsoever.
When you do a detailed look into the various ways that scientists determine the age of the universe, all of them have questionability attached. One of the major questions revolves around the idea that operations in the universe and on earth acted differently than we assume they did back then/whenever. We don't know for a fact how history was made back then. We can't tell the age of the universe that way, because we don't know for a fact if things acted like we assume they did.
Five thousand years is about all the farther we can go back, basing it on pottery and language and mitochondria. Carbon and other radioactive dating are flawed, both in how they works, and in our approach for using them.
Evolution is a hoax, because it is touted as factual, when it is not known to be factual.
