Date:   5/10/2012 4:20:51 AM ( 12 y ago)
Hits:   2,001
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1938493

0 of 1 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

hi i like your stuff but i can falsify "the theory of evolution" (lmao) at an even more fundamental level.

Please watch "Richard Dawkins stumped" on youtube (lololol)

So knowing his official "story" (and he is the living cornerstone of "the theory of evolution") is that (and just off of words he has spoken)-"evolution" (and for scientists we are referring here to MACRO-evolution not MICRO-evolution(variation within a kind/natural selection which no one with a brain in their head doubts) is that it ready...already lolllllling... it happened a long long time ago so one one was around to "observe it" and thats why we dont "observe" it today. So i will draw the following conclusions from this (just based on his answer ( i also have emails from N.I.H.(google them if you dont know who they are) saying the exact same thing (lmao))"it happened a long long time ago whats why we dont observe it today" LMAO)

So we have this "process" (LMAOOOO) that once happened a "long long" time ago (HAHAHAHAHA) and was "unobserved". AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHaHaHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

can someone with a scientific brain in their head please comment on this (LMAO) what is the difference between me claiming this "process(MACRO-evolution) is real (but not observable today (richard dawkins and N.I.H. say this not me lmao) but happened in the past and no one was around to "observe" it, and a process that is actually not "real"?

A-nothing (essentially). one is the figment of someones imagination (this hits hard if you believe in evolution im sorry) and the other isnt (unless someone wants to spend time thinking about it/imagining it). (the first has no bearing on reality either(remember richard dawkins says it isnt observable today not me N.I.H. does too loooool))

if anyone wants to look at an effect today "x" and assign a cause in the past (that was unobserved) to "x" they can, but it is in no way testable,repeatable,observable (remember what richard dawkins said looooool) so it fails at the most fundamental level of Science (has to be actually "observed" to then get to the next step (whatever the next step is)(lmao) please comment on this laypeople and scientists alike thank you for reading

(i have more content to post if people are interested to but i will wait)


 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1938493