Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:08:54 UTC No. 16582608

>>16582602
Reminder that "evolution theory" is a classic motte and bailey tactic. They will come up with ridiculous theories, use fallacious arguments to defend them, then when empirical evidence proves them wrong, they retreat to a much weaker claim: "well, life STILL appears to follow some process of gradual development, therefore evolution is true!", until they come up with some new and equally simple-minded take on how this "evolution" works, invoking the exact same fallacious arguments to defend it again and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Where we currently stand, empirically, is that mutation appears to be intelligent rather than random. Now they are using the same fallacious "given infinity years, our current theory will produce any desirable result" defense to insist that the intelligence behind mutations is exactly limited to the current scientific understanding.

No one knows how life came to be the way it is. There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:12:16 UTC No. 16582611

>>16582608
meds and >>>/x/ now!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:13:37 UTC No. 16582612

>>16582611
Why are you screeching and seething? Everything I wrote is consistent with science and empirical evidence.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:16:59 UTC No. 16582614

>>16582612
There is exactly 0 science and 0 evidence in your post, you just made up a scenario in your head and are so self-obsessed that you think your gut instinct acts as evidence.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:17:40 UTC No. 16582615

>>16582612
>intellectually honest

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:19:48 UTC No. 16582618

>>16582614
>>16582615
Notice how you are unable to refute or even coherently dispute any aspect of my post. Do pop-evo soience fans even have thoughts?