![]() |
|
Evolutionary theory debunked - Printable Version +- Lookism (https://bookism.net) +-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Thread: Evolutionary theory debunked (/showthread.php?tid=5621) |
RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 04-09-2022 ![]() ![]() Despite the clear similarity of these horseshoe crabs, evolutionists insist on giving the fossil different genus and species names to its living counterpart. But where’s the difference? Note that the fossil specimen was found in rock labelled as “Jurassic”—said to date from 180–225 million years ago. Why is there no evolution (‘change’) in all that (supposed) time? RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 04-09-2022 RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - Anubis - 04-09-2022 do you think humanoid reptoids exist? RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 04-09-2022 (04-09-2022, 07:11 PM)Anubis Wrote: do you think humanoid reptoids exist?No direct proof of them but evolutionists think that they evolved somehow. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - Bojack - 04-09-2022 Ngl bro i’d rather believe something created us rather than it being some rocks n shit RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 16-09-2022 Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 03-10-2022 Quote:Many materialists believe that the severe unlikelihood of the series of events required for the origin of life is not a serious problem because there is essentially unlimited time for these events to occur. George Wald expressed this sentiment in 1954, writing in [i]Scientific American[/i], “Time is in fact the hero of the plot.” Since he believed there were billions of years available for the origin of life on Earth, Wald poetically hoped, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.”1 But time isn’t unlimited. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - MVP - 03-10-2022 (03-10-2022, 08:32 PM)RuudVanNistelrooy Wrote:Quote:Many materialists believe that the severe unlikelihood of the series of events required for the origin of life is not a serious problem because there is essentially unlimited time for these events to occur. George Wald expressed this sentiment in 1954, writing in [i]Scientific American[/i], “Time is in fact the hero of the plot.” Since he believed there were billions of years available for the origin of life on Earth, Wald poetically hoped, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.”1 But time isn’t unlimited. its all irrelevant mental masturbation RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - MVP - 03-10-2022 this was legit though “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 20-11-2022 Another dubious claim about [i]naledi[/i] is that it intentionally buried its dead — a testimony to its supposedly human-like intellect. Burying dead in the cave where it was found would require shimmying through a steep, narrow crevice while dragging a body a long distance in the dark — a physically challenging task for any hominin of any level of intelligence. For many reasons, multiple scientists — including two of Berger’s colleagues at the University of Witwatersrand — dispute the intentional burial hypothesis.31 Alison Brooks of George Washington University observed that claims of intentional burial are “so far out there that they really need a higher standard of proof.”32 But the deathblow to claims for [i]Homo naledi[/i] as an ancestral or transitional fossil is its age. When first published, [i]naledi[/i]‘s promoters suggested, on the basis of evolutionary considerations rather than geological evidence, that it lived 2–3 million years ago. But at that time the fossils hadn’t been dated geologically. Carol Ward of the University of Missouri warned, “Without dates, the fossils reveal almost nothing about hominin evolution.”33 This didn’t stop paleoanthropologists from speculating, predicting that [i]naledi[/i] lived 2–3 million years ago and “represents an intermediate between [i]Australopithecus[/i] and [i]Homo erectus[/i].”34 In 2017, [i]Homo naledi[/i]‘s remains were dated to the “surprisingly” and “startlingly young” age of 236,000–335,000 years35 — an order of magnitude younger than the age predicted by evolutionary considerations, and far too young to be ancestral to our species. Anthropologist James Kidder candidly admitted, “Nearly everyone in the scientific community thought that the date of the [i]Homo naledi [/i]fossils, when calculated, would fall within the same general time period as other primitive early [i]Homo[/i] remains. We were wrong.”36
Many cautioned against the hype over [i]naledi[/i],37 and its trajectory resembles other hominins for which hyped claims of transitional or ancestral status eventually failed. When evaluating media claims of the newest human ancestor, a dose of healthy skepticism is warranted.
RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 01-12-2022 RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - Born2Mog - 01-12-2022 will read and respond if argument condensed to 1-5 paragraph RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - Jordan Barrett Battyboy - 02-12-2022 Evolution is a fact. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 01-05-2023 The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years. Update, 29 August 2014: recently, geophysicist David Stevenson at the California Institute of Technology admitted the problems that the earth’s magnetic field poses for long-age dogma: Quote:Right at this moment, there is a problem with our understanding of Earth’s core and it’s something that’s emerged only over the last year or two. The problem is a serious one. We do not now understand how the Earth’s magnetic field has lasted for billions of years. We know that the Earth has had a magnetic field for most of its history. We don’t know how the Earth did that. We have less of an understanding now than we previously thought we had a decade ago of how the Earth’s core has operated throughout history. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - MVP - 01-05-2023 I am the only god |