Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
at this point there is no proven PATH from dirty to life. but some very interesting examples of what could have been parts of the PATH keep accumulating. IMO it is just a question of time before there is a very plausible life origin scenario described by science.
a huge challenge is to compress the time scale. it may have taken 100s million years for the life to appear via a multi-step process (from pro-pro-pro-life to pro-pro-life to pro-life to life). how do you compress 100 million Years to Days in a Lab even if you know where to dig chemistry-wise?
a huge challenge is to compress the time scale. it may have taken 100s million years for the life to appear via a multi-step process (from pro-pro-pro-life to pro-pro-life to pro-life to life). how do you compress 100 million Years to Days in a Lab even if you know where to dig chemistry-wise?
You realize, of course, that I was joking, right? I can never be too sure.
And just to put a finer point on it, you do realize, of course, that evolution per se takes place at the embryonic level, where random mutuations subsequently either survive and thrive, or not, on the basis on non-random natural selection. Just so that we're on the same page.
Right... my beef is that these academics have been teaching their theory as if it were fact for generations now... I've examined it [people think I have some religious axe to grind but really, that's not much motivation for me] and am delighted to find that the academics are just full of shit up to their eyeballs so much of the time... I don't like them and they don't like me but I can shoot straighter than they can and they know it...
I had an Anthropology Class, the professor was railing against people like Schliemann. Schlieman decided that the academics were wrong when they declare everything ancient to be myth like they do. He used old stories to find Troy and he looted it. He's my hero for that. So what do the academics do? Do they say "wow, maybe those old writings are not myths!!" ? Hell no, they crybaby to this very day that Schlieman didn't call in the "experts" [them] to dig through the ruins!!
These morons that are academia or follow academia come on this very website quite often and assert that trading is impossible, they have proof that markets are random... they drool all over the site with their proof and assertions never realizing that the site is owned by guys that made $100,000,000 in their own lifetimes by trading and they fostered a lot of successful traders...
this did not come out quite right with several typos. fixed below:
at this point there is no proven PATH from Dirt to Life. but some very interesting examples of what could have been parts of the PATH keep accumulating. IMO it is just a question of time before there is a very plausible life origin scenario described by science.
a huge challenge is to compress the time scale. it may have taken 100s million years for the life to appear via a multi-step process (from pre-pre-pre-life to pre-pre-life to pre-life to life). how do you compress 100 million Years into Days in a Lab even if you know where to dig chemistry-wise?
The failure to compress time has led to the speculations about the age of the universe to get longer and longer over the recent decades... they fail to produce a species so they have to extend the estimates...
"Science" can always, and always will be able to produce "interesting examples" to prove their points... the flip side of that is that they own the venue for the debate, they are the self proclaimed experts and therefore they can win via reasoning and acts that are more political than scientific. Huge samples of the strata that are missing whole layers for no explainable reason can be ignored, the fact that a whole T-Rex skeleton that was not fossilized was unearthed can be swept under the rug, etc...
I love the videos from drdino.com.. the guy has a high IQ, he was a high school science teacher for years and he just has a lot fun showing how ridiculous "scientists" are with regard to what they say about the age of things and how they react to evidence that they don't want to/ can't explain...
People that WILL NOT look at counterarguments are simply willfully ignorant.. they hate drdino because his education sucks, his political views are nuts, etc.. and it's true, but nonetheless, for a crazy dumb guy he does a bang up job of exposing some the bullshit that passes for science...
To me a true "scientist" doesn't care where the evidence leads them.
They don't care what the truth/facts turn out to be so long as they are able to find it. I grew up being taught that a theory was just a theory until proven a fact. One of our esteemed ET evolutionists/ something from nothingness disciples pointed me to a web site that essentially defines a scientific theory as a fact until proven wrong. WTF?
It seems to me academia has become too politicized and consequently has lost much of it objectivity and credibility.
Are you cognizant of the difference between legitimate scientific theory and mere speculation or wishful thinking? I'm glad you characterize legitimate scientists as those people who don't care where the evidence leads them, as long as they arrive at the truth. That's why they try to invalidate their hypotheses with rigorous testing. Despite such efforts, the scientific theory of evolution has yet to be disproven. On the other hand, ALL creationists already have an end in mind: