Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[Sherlock Holmes]

Irrelevant.

You criticize a person for going against consensus and then I point out just one example of where consensus was absolutely wrong and you whine "irrelevant", you're all over the place.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I actually had to Point out your cheap tactics by reminding you.

Scientists now understand that evolution happens at all speeds. Darwin did not yet understand this.

I used "sudden" because that's an oft used term in the Cambrian explosion literature, I assume people know the durations, they should if they are prepared to post about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You criticize a person for going against consensus and then I point out just one example of where consensus was absolutely wrong and you whine "irrelevant", you're all over the place.

THat's correct. It was irrelevant.

And it was a lie. The "consensus" was that no mathematical proof of the theorem had yet been found. That's was accurate.

And no, deriving a proof is not relevant or in any way like the mountains of mutually supportive evidence for evolution.

Your attempt is another dimestore charlatan tactic. An attempt to sow doubt where none actually exists. A very old tactic.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

THat's correct. It was irrelevant.

So why did you mention the word?

And it was a lie. The "consensus" was that no mathematical proof of the theorem had yet been found. That's was accurate.

I'm getting tired of educating you for free, I should charge you going forward. The consensus was that a proof was impossible NOT that it had not been found yet, you dingabt.

Stop posting inane replies and start taking notes.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, well I wasn't around 4 billion years ago.

So you don't know if abiogenesis is true or not.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you don't know if abiogenesis is true or not.

True, just as I don't know for sure that if I threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, that I'd not get the full text of Shakespeare's King Lear, a feat no doubt thousands of times more likely than abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So why did you mention the word?


I'm getting tired of educating you for free, I should charge you going forward. The consensus was that a proof was impossible NOT that it had not been found yet, you dingabt.

View attachment 998742

Stop posting inane replies and start taking notes.

Right, they thought they had exhausted the possibilities. It's just not relevant. It's a cheap charlatan tactic to sow doubt in overwhelming consensus based on overwhelming evidence. Stop wasting your time.

Your overly general nonsense could be applied to any knowledge. Obviously what you are saying is usless appeal to emotion. Thats why you arent sticking forks in outlets and trying to fall up.

.
You have employed fallacy, uunbformed arguments, falsehoods, and half truths in your attempt to upend the most robust scientific theory in history.

Then you seem so surprised that this effort is a colossal failure at every level.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, they thought they had exhausted the possibilities.

Can you cite any kind of credible source for this rather odd claim?

It's just not relevant. It's a cheap charlatan tactic to sow doubt in overwhelming consensus based on overwhelming evidence. Stop wasting your time.

You criticized Tour for challenging consensus. I pointed out that one cannot trust consensus and gave an example from mathematics to prove my point.

You have employed fallacy, uni formed arguments, falsehoods, and half truths in your attempt to upend the most robust scientific theory in history.

If that's what you want to believe then go right ahead.

Then you seem so surprised that this effort is a colossal failure at every level.

You have a very vivid imagination.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you cite any kind of credible source for this rather odd claim?

It's the equivalent of what you posted. It's why they thought there was no solution. Are you kidding right now?

You criticized Tour for challenging consensus.

False. I criticized Tour for acting as though his youtube video claims are an actual challenge to the consensus of the evidence, despite knowing better.

He did this for attention and money.

You making the same mistake does not surprise me.

But a published scientist knows better.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's the equivalent of what you posted. It's why they thought there was no solution. Are you kidding right now?

I posted text from this source: Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

Here it is again:

You challenged that source by saying "they thought they had exhausted the possibilities" but that articles uses no such phrase, so where did you get it from? The consensus ("almost all living mathematicians at the time") was that "believed to be impossible to prove using previous knowledge" but as we now know they were wrong.

You'd never have found that proof, other mathematicians never found the proof, why? because Wiles was willing to challenge consensus and they weren't.

Moral of the example? consensus is an unreliable method of determining truths.

Now go and annoy someone else you dufus, I'm grabbing a brew and getting into my swimming pool.

 

[Leo123]

It's the equivalent of what you posted. It's why they thought there was no solution. Are you kidding right now?



False. I criticized Tour for acting as though his youtube video claims are an actual challenge to the consensus of the evidence, despite knowing better.

He did this for attention and money.

You making the same mistake does not surprise me.

But a published scientist knows better.

There is no evidence of biogenesis new life emerging from some prehistoric puddle.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You challenged that source by saying "they thought they had exhausted the possibilities"

I did not challenge anyone. What I said is the equivalent.

I will give no more attention to this silly error and distraction from you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no evidence of biogenesis new life emerging from some prehistoric puddle.

Except for literally all the evidence ever collected and every observation ever made.

So yeah... I don't think you could be more wrong.

See, everyone? Another example of the deniers having nothing but ad hoc lies to rely on.

 

[abu afak]

There is no evidence of biogenesis new life emerging from some prehistoric puddle.

There are however interesting results from taking extant early earth molecules and mixing them to them to produce life-Like and more complex molecules structures such as self replicating long chain molecules.
Evo has Overwhelming evidence if not abiogenesis.

One thing we know for certain. Man Created gods. Tens of thousands of them, almost all gone by the wayside.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are however interesting results from taking extant early earth molecules and mixing them to them to produce life-Like and more complex molecules structures such as self replicating long chain molecules.
Evo has Overwhelming evidence if not abiogenesis.

One thing we know for certain. Man Created gods. Tens of thousands of them, almost all gone by the wayside.
`

First, we know abiogenesis is a fact.

Once there was no life. Then there was.

Next step: showing it formed on earth and describing how. This is the Theory of Abiogensis.

We know all the materials were here. We can spot the appearance of remnants of early, simple life. The chemical bonds in molecules associated with life are well understood and not magical. More evidence.

The basic principles we expect from molecules associated with life can be teased out of organic molecules with conditions that existed on the early earth. More evidence.

We know for a fact that earth was bombarded with space rocks containing the precursors to the chemicals associated with life. More evidence.

We know for a fact that more than enough time and resources existed to form life molecules from other chemicals. More evidence.

We have not a shred of evidence or any reaspn to think that the universe is anything but a deterministic physical system with natural laws. More evidence.

I could keep going and going...

 

[alang1216]

True, just as I don't know for sure that if I threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, that I'd not get the full text of Shakespeare's King Lear, a feat no doubt thousands of times more likely than abiogenesis.

Yet it happened. How did God do it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, just as I don't know for sure that if I threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, that I'd not get the full text of Shakespeare's King Lear, a feat no doubt thousands of times more likely than abiogenesis.

This is the Junkyard Tornado fallacy.

We long ago got past this useless fallacy, as a species, in our philosophy and academia and science.

Evolution cleared this non hurdle in about the year 1870.

 

[Leo123]

Yet it happened. How did God do it?

He’s God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He’s God.

Thank goodness to scientists don't just throw up their hands and give up like this.

Else we would still all be trying to pray away illnesses, instead of using modern medicine.

 

[scruffy]

So consider the question "what is the origin of the laws of nature" that's a reasonable question about the world and I expect it has an answer.

Yes. That's a much better question. Open to experimental access.

But we can't develop a scientific explanation for the presence of laws of nature can we? because to do so necessitates a recourse to laws.

Laws are just equations that describe the relationships between things.

If you means laws like limits, those are open for investigation and experimentation.

Do you agree that is a question that cannot have a scientific answer, explanation?

Science is investigation by experimentation. We send a Hubble telescope, it sends us pictures, from those we derive answers.

Mostly they're negative answers, that help disprove theories.

Sometimes they're positive answers, and sometimes they raise new questions, especially about things we can't see directly.

I can tell you for sure that Einstein was wrong, his gravitational constant is actually a multi dimensional tensor. But we wouldn't have known that without hundreds or thousands of experiments.