|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Spur-Man |
|
Post Content
|
...
You're far, far away from being a truth seeker. You're just another fanatic, babbling the same apologetics falsities, a dunce looking at a mirror crying and drying your tears with tissues weaved with lie thread. Science and the scientific method is the closest to perfection we can get to fathom the universe around us. Whenever you want truth, is the science road you should travel. But all of your words fall flat, claiming to be a truth seeker but drooling mysticism. The simple fact you go "its just a theory", tells so much about you that your punny mind is uncapable of wrapping itself around. Learn, study, enlighten yourself! Escape the cave of superstition and become better. Its so liberating to understand the value of knowledge over fear.
Quoting: MaybeTrollingUAgain So when it comes down to it you actually have nothing to add but debating skills and insults. Spent 10 years at University, 3 qualifications, 2 of which are post graduate, and a professional designation. Have no interest in religion but the history of scientific theories such as the Big Bang do interest me. Offer me something that is real otherwise just say it is the best we have right now and hopefully we will demonstrate it's validity soon. Abiogenesis is the best we have right now, but it's miles ahead of your high school science hypothesis. It's not fair to compare the two. We've proven that organic matter can come from inorganic matter, we've proven that self replicating RNA can assemble naturally, we've proven that RNA can form ribosomes that build nucleotides which are the building blocks of DNA. The common ancestry model within evolution theory is much better supported than abiogenesis. The ERV evidence is essentially as reliable as the results of a paternity test. When you say "proven" what do you mean exactly? Has it been observed, replicated or the scientific world just knows that it must be so? Happy to read papers etc explaining how organic matter comes from inorganic matter? For evolution you first need life. Obviously I mean that it has been observed and replicated. The creation of organic matter from inorganic matter was demonstrated nearly 70 years ago during the miller-Urey experiments. Yes, for evolution you need life. But you don't need to explain how life began in order to explain evolution. If abiogenesis was proven false, it wouldn't refute evolution.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
