What's the most fringe pseudoscience theory that may be legit?

IUT

CTMU

This isn't even good bait anymore bud

Niggers are a different species

IUT

Faster than light travel.

Creationism.

Multiregional origin of modern humans.

mbti

Planet X

people "die"

Ancient aliums.

>fringe
I'm actually writing this post because of it, and thousands of people who have applied it this theory useful

for real though

This

This is the only valid response in the thread.

Okay Einstein

Meme Magic

universe is a simulation

Oral Polio Vaccine as the introduction of SIV / HIV into the human population in the Belgium Congo in 1957-1959.

+ 1

not fringe

Simulated universe

The change of state of consciousness through meditation and yoga (without the mystical bullshit).

hereditary differences of sex and race. you can't believe in evolution otherwise. Equalitarianism is just clever creationism.

This is total bs.
Origins of HIV are very well known if you do a little research on where the brits were testing metric tons of unknown content bioweapons and than just left.
Bioweapons were not from british origin but american as part of the deal with USA right after second world war because brits were very economically weak after the war and could not afford this kid of research.
The fact that Africa today is a living hell hole and pit of countless diseases comes from this and this only.
There was a nice thread about his a month back so search in the archives.

>kind*
>this*

This "Scientist" piece of shit shill is actually poisoning the well here

AIDS in Central Africa = middle-agey tropical diseases sharing symptoms, and more importantly, hepatitis vaccination, just like the gays in 80s NY

It's outdated and debunked bud. I don't know why you have such an obsession with this theory.

Satan knows

MiHsC

Cosmological natural selection

OP did say fringe.
Why are so many people upset about this and not eg.

Cold fusion/LENR

Black Holes

IQ not being a meme

Look into it. It's not debunked. There's just a small conspiracy of half a dozen to a dozen people with connections to Nature and Science who keep publishing papers saying it's debunked, without actually debunking it.

Protips:
There were 400+ chimps at the compound, from all over Africa. We have receipts. There is no reason to have that many chimps unless they were killing them for vaccine manufacture. It was also common practice everywhere else to use local monkeys / apes for manufacturing oral polio vaccine.

Simian viruses can cross over via vaccine. It's well documented. See: SV 40.

The genetic dating that the conspiracy has done to show a origin in humans date before 1957 is flawed on two counts. First, it assumes that there was only a single point of infection, but on the OPV hypotheses, with half a million IIRC people given the vaccine, there may have been much more than one. Two, this kind of genetic dating on retroviruses is bullshit. It assumes a roughly constant rate of mutation, when most of the change happens through recombination. They claim that they have methods to sort out which are the recombinant sequences, but their methods don't work if the recombination is very near the root, which is what would have happened in the OPV hypothesis.

Plus there is a very high correlation between the OPV vaccination sites and the first reported cases of cases. It's not a coincidence that the first case of AIDS that is confirmed by actual blood sample dates back to 1959 or 1960.

Wait... you're denying that HIV infection causes AIDS symptoms? And you're calling me a buffoon and shill? Lol. I assume you're a troll.

>evolution
>might actually be legit
Yeah no.

not fringe at all m8

>overwhelming evidence still isn't enough
You don't choose to believe in evolution; evolution is fact regardless of your consent.

Too bad it's been outright contradicted.

Also, because it's a fun theory. And because it's probably important to know what the actual history underlying the biggest human caused medical catastrophe ever, to ensure that we don't do it again.

Do you know about HeLa? It's the same thing, all over again. Here's a (long) primer if you don't:

What Happens When Science Goes Bad.
The Corruption of Science and the Origin of AIDS: A Study in Spontaneous Generation

Louis Pascal[*]

bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Pascal91.html

It's not. Any conflict between modern science and creationism is artificially imposed by too narrow a scope.

Protip: There are no gods, no miracles, no afterlife, no supernatural. The whole history of humankind attests to this. Thousands, perhaps millions of superatural explanations have been proffered over the history of humankind, and not one has been confirmed, and many have been debunked. To ignore this track record is irrational.

Also, required reading on this topic:
freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/03/thor/

Creationism != supernatural.

Again, it's all about what chain of ancillary elements you unwittingly drag in with you. Evaluate your logical framework, strip these things off, reveal the core that actually constitutes "creationism", then break it into pieces and see how they can be re-assembled and what the whole actually means.

Which is just a more verbose and mechanical way of saying there is no inherent connection between a given religious framework and creationism (by any meaningful definition). If humans were created by genetic engineering of a prior version of ourselves, or another species that existed before us, I consider this a form of creationism.

>Creationism != supernatural.
lols

Are you going to go to the common escape of theists presented with evidence, which is a non-interfering deist clockmaker god?

Oh, I should read the whole post. You're just misusing the word "creationism". I see.

Also. There's the possibility the universe all came into existence very recently in such a state that only implies its history occurred. On the extreme end there's the possibility you and I are robots activated 15 minutes ago, with false memories, and a meticulously engineered environment and context that happens to match. But none of it really happened.

Although such a possibility has little utility and tends to bring about mockery and conflict, so it's better to keep it to yourself.

I'm not religious. I'm just a sort that is poor at valuing self delusion, and generally tries form an accurate view of the total spectrum of possibilities at an y given point. So I don't claim things are impossible when they very obviously aren't.

No.

this