Originally Posted by
Cypress
Nope. Ass-backwards dead wrong, a false analogy, and an uninformed assertion. What you are referring to is a hypothesis, an educated guess, and scientists have been very clear about that, especially when extrapolating to extraterrestrial life. It is certainly not a "scientific consensus" that results from repeated testing, observation, and probing of multiple lines of evidence.
If you want to claim scientists have it wrong on evolution, and if you genuinely respect the scientific method, it is incumbent upon you to come up with an alternative hypothesis - one that fits a century's worth of all the observational, genetic, and empirical data...one that does not invoke magic, the supernatural, conjecture, or supreme beings.
I’m talking about the origin of life and you’re talking about evolution.
I thought they were two separate things.
‘Scientific consensus’ isn’t really a scientific term, anyway. It only signifies that there is a general agreement among scientists on a general subject. So I’m not even sure what you’re arguing about.
But there’s absolutely a ‘general agreement’ amongst scientists, and the general public, that all that is needed for life to form are the right conditions and lots of time.
Point blank: That is an assumption.
Given that vast quantities of time are involved, I’m not even sure it’s a testable hypothesis. You can’t duplicate ten million years in a lab.
Ironically, both sides of their debate have their own untestable hypotheses.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Bookmarks