>Idiotic strawman that was not a strawman, they wre wrong and continue to preach they're right on topic they were wrong.
>The only reason such timescales are used is because we measured them. You're an idiot. excuse me for assuming it was impossible to measure distance with units of time. so to confirm a star is 1000 light years away, you would have to travel 1000 years in time across space.
we've never done this, at best scintists guess or estimate without any experiment and as you say THEY WERE WRONG.
>you are just going to guess how it's done, and then act shocked that your guess is stupid. Textbook strawman argument.
that is how it's done. also again not a strawman.
Alexander Williams
>humans evolve 200000 years ago >be wrong >humans evolved 300000 years ago >be wrong >humans evolved 500000 years ago >repeat indefinitely despite never having measured these time periods
dna is a complex information system, information systems have never been observed creating themselves from complex amino acids in nature, or in controlled conditions.
they really should rename this board /scifi/
Parker Reed
And you should be send back in time to 1940 and you should be put on a train to Auschwitz, where you should be gassed and incinerated because you are a fucking moron.
Luke Ortiz
kek you think people were gassed at Auschwitz,
William Watson
>it's a "babby's first scientific discourse" episode The red is what has changed, a far cry from the shit you're pulling. Journalism has blown such findings out of proportion to move units.
Nicholas Bennett
>babby's first scientific discourse >posts a graph with less information than my meme of known evolution fakery
Whats also not taken into account is the degree to which artists and scientists attempt to paint a face and recreate entire subpecies from individual fossils which are already greatly damaged and subject to various conditions.
>Journalism has blown such findings out of proportion to move units.
yes which is why ive had enough of their shit and investigating myself.
Joseph Allen
>known evolution fakery That's from a Chick tract, user. Not to mention it gets most of its info from "Dr" Kent Hovind.
>Whats also not taken into account is the degree to which artists and scientists attempt to paint a face and recreate entire subpecies from individual fossils which are already greatly damaged and subject to various conditions. I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say here. Are you ripping on the artistic renditions, or virtual reconstructions of the skull. The artistic renditions, while imaginative, have a basis in reality via using living apes and humans as a template. The virtual reconstructions are rarely ever used, save for the heavily distorted (Sahelanthropus) and fragmentary (Rudolfensis) findings, and even then, they have been refined.
>yes which is why ive had enough of their shit and investigating myself. Then perhaps sites such as researchgate and others would be useful to you.
Joseph Flores
And with a wave of the hand all sketchiness revolving around the bones are brushed aside as no problemo
While scientists continue spouting horseshit , then you fall back on your absurd miscalculations and no true Scotsman bullshit about why evolution is a failed theory.
