Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

The main goal of 'evolution', and other claims, is not to learn the truth.

The real goal is, indeed, to convince the world of believing in the very opposite.


Lies, built on other lies, based on a foundation of the one, greatest lie.


A lie that allows all other lies to stand, and they would all crumble to dust, if lie failed to work...


But that's another issue, so I'll move along now...

a reply to: turbonium1

The only lies are what you just posted. Evolution has no goal. It’s a scientific theory describing how the allele frequency of organisms changes over time. Not being able to comprehend the material doesn’t make it wrong. Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology et al do indeed seek the truth. If that weren’t the case we wouldn’t have the MES, genetics, more precise dating methods, and updated science as we learn more. Science is self correcting unlike your flat out refusal to try to learn.

Sadly, you are the one with no interest in truth and simply pushing your anachronistic world view. If you really believe that Bronze Age text is the end all be all, then why did it change so drastically after the Babylonian Exile when the Hebrew scribes were forced to work for their captors? Major revisions that didn’t exist in any text prior to this period suddenly became part of the Torah. But it’s the infallible word of a vengeful angry god? If that’s the god you want to worship, more power to you.

But, not believing a minority viewpoint doesn’t make 160 years of science wrong. Especially when the corpus of evidence supporting the MES is larger than the evidence for all other scientific theories combined. For the record, it isn’t consensus that makes evolution true. It’s the testable, repeatable facts that you deny the existence of. I’ve yet
To see you attempt to falsify the science. When called on to do so, you resort to ad hominem attacks. I gave you a very specific example of speciation demonstrated in both morphology and genetics and you didn’t once try to address it. That alone is very telling about the precariousness of your position.

If you are capable of an honest disclosure, address Sima de los Huesos and the fact that the rather complete remains demonstrate morphological
And genetic transition from Homo Heidelbergensis to H. Altaiensis (Denisovans). Are you able to do so or not? Or will you take the same route as Cooperton did when he tried to say I claimed that Homo Naledi was a transitional form of our genus, which I never claimed and then gave him the email to Dr. Lee Berger who headed the dig at the Rising star Cave System that discovered, Collected and catalogued all of the remains found and marked the locations of other chambers containing even more remains.

Just once, I’d love to see one of you guys honestly address the science instead of making excuses as to why it’s a waste of your time to do so and then launch into a Gish Gallop, an Ad Hominem attack or both in one breath. You know, the usual tactic perpetrated by folks who don’t actually understand the science and have no interest in trying to either to either because it might interfere with your box of strawen trotted our on full display.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

The only lies are what you just posted. Evolution has no goal. It’s a scientific theory describing how the allele frequency of organisms changes over time. Not being able to comprehend the material doesn’t make it wrong. Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology et al do indeed seek the truth. If that weren’t the case we wouldn’t have the MES, genetics, more precise dating methods, and updated science as we learn more. Science is self correcting unlike your flat out refusal to try to learn.

Sadly, you are the one with no interest in truth and simply pushing your anachronistic world view. If you really believe that Bronze Age text is the end all be all, then why did it change so drastically after the Babylonian Exile when the Hebrew scribes were forced to work for their captors? Major revisions that didn’t exist in any text prior to this period suddenly became part of the Torah. But it’s the infallible word of a vengeful angry god? If that’s the god you want to worship, more power to you.

But, not believing a minority viewpoint doesn’t make 160 years of science wrong. Especially when the corpus of evidence supporting the MES is larger than the evidence for all other scientific theories combined. For the record, it isn’t consensus that makes evolution true. It’s the testable, repeatable facts that you deny the existence of. I’ve yet
To see you attempt to falsify the science. When called on to do so, you resort to ad hominem attacks. I gave you a very specific example of speciation demonstrated in both morphology and genetics and you didn’t once try to address it. That alone is very telling about the precariousness of your position.

If you are capable of an honest disclosure, address Sima de los Huesos and the fact that the rather complete remains demonstrate morphological
And genetic transition from Homo Heidelbergensis to H. Altaiensis (Denisovans). Are you able to do so or not? Or will you take the same route as Cooperton did when he tried to say I claimed that Homo Naledi was a transitional form of our genus, which I never claimed and then gave him the email to Dr. Lee Berger who headed the dig at the Rising star Cave System that discovered, Collected and catalogued all of the remains found and marked the locations of other chambers containing even more remains.

Just once, I’d love to see one of you guys honestly address the science instead of making excuses as to why it’s a waste of your time to do so and then launch into a Gish Gallop, an Ad Hominem attack or both in one breath. You know, the usual tactic perpetrated by folks who don’t actually understand the science and have no interest in trying to either to either because it might interfere with your box of strawen trotted our on full display.

All of the valid evidence has been presented to you, and it's even right there, in front of you. Trying to ignore all the evidence, again and again, simply makes you look ridiculous. And a fraud, too.

A child can see this evidence, so why ignore it, as a brat ignores something he doesn't have the maturity to admit is the truth?

I'm only looking at all the valid evidence, which proves, beyond doubt, that evolution of all species, into another species...is complete nonsense.


The facts show it, clear as day.


You can scream about how all species change into other species, it's not my concern. The evidence shows only that you insist on being in denial of reality. Go right ahead, it's your loss.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the species have changed into another, different species.What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.

You are wrong. They all changed. Go ahead and give me an example of an organism that is the same exact species as it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Good luck with that one. The crocodile today was similar to the crocodile from the past, but it wasn't exactly the same and it wasn't the same species. Look it up.

You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.

So you can support this assertion of faulty assumption with something beyond your own hyperbole laden conjecture and incredulousness then right?

Any of those extinct species have nothing to do with 'evolving' into any other, living species.

Some species simply go extinct. Nobody is claiming that every extinct species has evolved into something else. Yet another straw man argument from the fables of nothing.

It's easy to point out any similarities in ALL species, which live today, or any species which are now extinct...

It is? Please, elucidate us with your vast expertise in all biological organisms. I love learning so enlighten me with
Your vast knowledge.

You assume if a species is extinct, it changed into another species, over time, somehow, because it shared some DNA, with another species, living today!!

No, you are imparting this straw man onto otters because you don’t actually have the ability
To falsify the science so instead you resort to fantastical Gish Galloping. Sometimes a species, genus etc... simply
Goes extinct. It doesn’t mean it has evolved into an entirely new organism just
Because it disappears from the fossil record. That’s a ludicrous statement to make.

The problem you ignore is the fact that ALL living species share DNA!!

But you insist it is proof, no matter what the facts are.

The only ones ignoring facts are those disputing science but not actually being able
To falsify it. It’s quite amusing. Multiple examples have been given. Once again, I’ll bring up Sima de los Huesos near Atapuerca. It’s a deep pit containing some amazingly complete fossilized archaic hominid remains. These remains are distinctly transitional between H. Heidelbergensis and Denisovans. They have for more modern morphological charactristics than they do morphological features consistent with earlier Heidelbergensis remains. Genetically, they’re far more closely related to Denisovans than Neanderthal. How do you account for there being nothing in the fossil or genetic record for a hominid like this at a geologically earlier time frame and nothing like this transitional form later in the geological/ fossil record and only Neanderthal and Denisovan yet no more Heidelbergensis? I’m sure you’ve got an amazing explanation for this with proper citations. Right?’

The fact every species on Earth has been the same species, first day on Earth, and forever after, whether it is living today, or is no longer living on Earth.

That’s not a fact. That’s your personal Belief. Not even remotely the same thing. Please feel free to support your belief with actual facts though.

Like all tricks, it's based on twisting our perceptions, holding up false assumptions.

Sorry but that sounds much more like a strict Abrahamic theological interpretation of things than anything to do with science. Are you sure you’re railing against the correct folks?

Your whole argument is based on feeble interpretations, obviously.

What do you consider to be valid evidence, now?

What are your qualifications to make such an assertion? You certainly haven’t demonstrated an understanding of the science being discussed at the most basic level yet you’re confortable making such statements as if they’re fact and not your pathetic opinion? Seriously, if my interpretations are so feeble,It should be no problem for such a brilliant mind to falsify the science with big boy words instead of a feeble, pathetic ad hominem that betrays the depths of your ignorance.

Go on, step up and give your best shot.

The millions of species on Earth today, which reproduce this same species, even as we speak, thousands of times over and over again.... what does it mean, according to you?

It's evidence.

It is evidence of your willful ignorance and refusal to look at science with anything resembling an open mind when all ou have for people with an education is contempt. If reproduction worked remotely the way you insist it does, then children would be mere clones of their parents. Every generation is genetically different than the previous one. To deny reality is usually considered insanity. Are you insane? A troll? Or are you really this ignorant?

Please use your big boy pants to address the remains at Sima de los Huesos instead of Gish Galloping your way out of demonstrating that you can’t actually address the science because you don’t understand any of it. What’s wrong? Is there not a specific link addressing this site on AIG or ICR? Can’t think for yourself or falsify the science?

You wish it was not evidence, you might claim it is not evidence, or - as always - you simply try to ignore this evidence, as if it didn't exist.

I genuinely wish you would post something that even resembles evidence. There’s none in this reply or any previous post from you.

You choose to interpret extinct species as 'evolving' into another, entirely new, different species, all based on what you interpret as 'evidence', which is pure nonsense, which you insist on spewing over and over, no matter it's all crap.

You’re delusional. I tried to be quite clear earlier that I don’t believe any such thing. Some species simply go extinct. Others evolve and adapt. It’s not brain surgery, it’s high school biology.

a reply to: turbonium1

Just as I thought. Further ad hominem attacks and not An iota Of addressing the questions. You’re completely
Incapable of doing so because you are clueless and don’t have a kindergartners understanding of science.

originally posted by: BoneSay

That was a lot of assumptions wow

Do you have a jump to assumptions mat?

That we were not created by some guy with a rob and sandals doesn't mean we don't have a purpose

You accuse me of making assumptions and then assume I believe some guy in a robe and sandals created the world? You're making assumptions about me making assumptions

I was simply explaining my path. I was once deeply rooted in nihilism when I held evolution to be the pinnacle of philosophical thought. But empirical evidence led me away to realize that evolutionary theory does not match what we see in the observable world. To assume I blindly came to disregard evolution without evidence is another assumption, but it is a common assumption among those who assume evolution to be true. I put the pursuit of truth at the forefront of my priorities, this is not a game to me. After years of unbiased pursuit I came to realize that consciousness is the primordial 'thing' from which all came forth. Similar to how your mind can muster an elaborate dream realm in an instant, so too do I believe God, the primordial consciousness, created all things in a rather quick manner. there's an interesting thread going on now in which the CIA thoroughly examined how this is the case, and that matter is a by-product of consciousness.

Now we can think of a few more:
- Other universes, and some of them so more advanced they actually were able to create life on our own
- The Matrix stuff, we all live on a simulation
- This life is just a small intro for the real thing, we don't have a clue, we evolve to another dimension or some thing like that once we died here, no god required, it just happens because way way above the universe is just a cell on something way bigger which doesn't even know we exist
- We are not even real, just god thinking about how things could be, if he ever decides to go for the real thing
- We are already all dead and all we do is just repeat our lives over and over in a memory stored somewhere, so other scientists can review and see what the hell happened with us, and they are reading this too, hello guys!
- Whatever other people will probably think about, which can probably be a zillion of other possibilities

But you jump to the only one that confirms your entire purpose in life

I would say all those ideas have portions of truth to them, and I could relate to all of those philosophies. Nihilism on the other hand, the belief in meaninglessness, holds no merit. Nihilism and evolution go hand-in-hand because evolution attempts to explain the world forming from random chaotic processes which inherently strips it from all meaning if it is an accident. It is a toxic philosophy that leads young people into hopelessness, depression, and even suicide.

to let yourself be guided and not have a clue and expect that everything is chosen for you and that you are ignorant and will never be in control.

You rag on me for making assumptions but then make these assumptions against me? I am not blind in my pursuit for truth, I regard all empirical scientific evidence to gain a complete pictures of the world. My spiritual awareness, albeit imperfect, also is an intuitive form of discernment. God is living, and I do not regard the words of the dead more valuable than the intuitive spirit that feeds me knowledge from time to time.

originally posted by: cooperton
And you think you can grasp the timespan of 4 billion years?? Evolution relies on an unimaginable timeframe to work its magic and instill its faith. 'with enough time, anything could have happened'. It's an absurd faith. It is also totally illogical to think that ordered systems like the human being and solar systems could arise at random. It is much, much, much more likely to have been organized by an intelligent force. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is a long shot.

Again, you can't call something faith when it is backed by so much evidence. Ordered systems? We know how gravity works and the formation of stars is NOT random. Evolution is a long shot? Why, because you don't like it and prefer religion?

Please explain to me how something that is backed up by hundreds of thousands of scientific research papers including tons of experiments, could be more of a long shot, than some all powerful super complex infinite being that just happens to randomly exist. You want to talk about long shot? Explain how something like that can happen without extreme luck. I'm really interested in your probability calculations here.

Wouldn't god be ordered??? If order must come from intelligence, then god must come from another intelligence as well. Oh wait, he actually does. He comes from human intelligence, man has been inventing gods for thousands of years.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.

Then where is your evidence of a species staying exactly the same species for a hundred million years? You can't claim anything about assumptions when you didn't even refute a single thing I said.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Akragon

A++. I just choked on my cigarette laughing at the thought. You’d think they would’ve fed them to some
Pythons or other constrictors. Seriously... what do literalists thinkmtge carnivores ate On the Ark?

Come on, man. Noah obviously went to Walmart and bought pet food for all of them. They don't need meat, just kibble.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
If it doesnt rely on evolution, then what? Are you proposing Life instantly exist?

No. I'm saying the original formation of life is not the same process as the evolution of life. Evolution did not exist until replicating life emerged, which wasn't caused by evolution itself, unless you are simply referring to RNA becoming DNA.

originally posted by: Barcs
So where are the protein? Amino acids do not linked themselves by their own chemical reaction alone.

Watch the video. It was explained very well, way better than I can explain it. Complex molecules have been shown to form and increase complexity in multiple environments.

www.researchgate.net...

That isn't a research paper, it's an article. I understand that scientists are leaning more toward underwater thermal vents at this point, but there is much not known. It could be a combination of both, or neither. These are all separate hypotheses. Amino acids can form in tons of different conditions.

Now you are suggesting another planet similar to Early Earth environment rich with primordial soup.

I'm saying it's a possibility. Mars used to have oceans and plate tectonics. It could have had primitive life billions of years ago before it lost most of its atmosphere. Again, there are well over a dozen hypotheses in regards to abiogenesis.

And speaking of Mars, I think it's only a matter of time before life or remnants of it are discovered there.

You said it yourself, "Hypotheses are not CLAIMS, they are works in progress."
"The back of a turtle" is religious poetry language incompatible with science language. There is no "big bang" in religious language. You would have to use better term.

Explaining god and the bible with "magic" is exactly the same as believing a giant space turtle caused the expansion of the universe. It's not an explanation, it's a belief based on an unknown gap of scientific knowledge. It doesn't matter how you fill it, it's a complete guess that has no explaining power at all.

And TONS of religious people agree with the big bang, it doesn't matter if it's part of the faith, it's part of what humans have learned about the universe.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: BoneSay

That was a lot of assumptions wow

Do you have a jump to assumptions mat?

That we were not created by some guy with a rob and sandals doesn't mean we don't have a purpose

You accuse me of making assumptions and then assume I believe some guy in a robe and sandals created the world? You're making assumptions about me making assumptions

I was simply explaining my path. I was once deeply rooted in nihilism when I held evolution to be the pinnacle of philosophical thought. But empirical evidence led me away to realize that evolutionary theory does not match what we see in the observable world. To assume I blindly came to disregard evolution without evidence is another assumption, but it is a common assumption among those who assume evolution to be true. I put the pursuit of truth at the forefront of my priorities, this is not a game to me. After years of unbiased pursuit I came to realize that consciousness is the primordial 'thing' from which all came forth. Similar to how your mind can muster an elaborate dream realm in an instant, so too do I believe God, the primordial consciousness, created all things in a rather quick manner. there's an interesting thread going on now in which the CIA thoroughly examined how this is the case, and that matter is a by-product of consciousness.

Now we can think of a few more:
- Other universes, and some of them so more advanced they actually were able to create life on our own
- The Matrix stuff, we all live on a simulation
- This life is just a small intro for the real thing, we don't have a clue, we evolve to another dimension or some thing like that once we died here, no god required, it just happens because way way above the universe is just a cell on something way bigger which doesn't even know we exist
- We are not even real, just god thinking about how things could be, if he ever decides to go for the real thing
- We are already all dead and all we do is just repeat our lives over and over in a memory stored somewhere, so other scientists can review and see what the hell happened with us, and they are reading this too, hello guys!
- Whatever other people will probably think about, which can probably be a zillion of other possibilities

But you jump to the only one that confirms your entire purpose in life

I would say all those ideas have portions of truth to them, and I could relate to all of those philosophies. Nihilism on the other hand, the belief in meaninglessness, holds no merit. Nihilism and evolution go hand-in-hand because evolution attempts to explain the world forming from random chaotic processes which inherently strips it from all meaning if it is an accident. It is a toxic philosophy that leads young people into hopelessness, depression, and even suicide.

to let yourself be guided and not have a clue and expect that everything is chosen for you and that you are ignorant and will never be in control.

You rag on me for making assumptions but then make these assumptions against me? I am not blind in my pursuit for truth, I regard all empirical scientific evidence to gain a complete pictures of the world. My spiritual awareness, albeit imperfect, also is an intuitive form of discernment. God is living, and I do not regard the words of the dead more valuable than the intuitive spirit that feeds me knowledge from time to time.

I'm sorry i think i wrote what i had in mind in the wrong way, somehow it caused you to feel i'm against you or attacking, i'm not, i don't even know, i wish i had time to fix it up but i don't so i just want to say that even though i don't follow much i respect what you feel and i'm not hating or anything like that, i just had the wrong words at the wrong time

I did not try to make assumptions about you, i said i noticed assumptions in what you wrote. And that kind of moves thing in one direction, so you follow that road even if you say you don't, you were kind of clear what you really wanted to express even if you did not say it so, people can see you know?

You have your beliefs, you try to reach to a position where they are confirmed by other people, it leads to people telling you why it may not be true, it is just debate, not insult, i'm sorry if i said things in a way that made it look like i hate or insulted you, not at all how i feel, i'm just bad with words

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.

Then where is your evidence of a species staying exactly the same species for a hundred million years? You can't claim anything about assumptions when you didn't even refute a single thing I said.

You don't have proof that a species even existed a hundred million years ago, but you assume it's true, because 'scientists' have dated fossils, rocks, and Earth itself, right? No. The dates are based on unfounded assumptions, which were also based on earlier unfounded assumptions. It's the same old trick used by other fields of 'science' - that have one agenda, propagandize it, twist evidence, ignore evidence that doesn't fit, and use one faulty assumption to build up further flawed assumptions. Stack up all sorts of papers to support it, and it becomes a 'fact'.

The radiometric dating method uses the parent element, which decays over time, to assess the age of the rock. Which doesn't work, or certainly cannot be proven to work. They don't know the original state of the rock, first problem. The original state CANNOT be known, or proven, because nobody was there to see the rock. So - right off the bat - dating a rock, or anything, cannot work, because the original state cannot be known.

That's why they ASSUME the original state of a rock, or a fossil, or whatever. Any field of 'science' that has to make assumptions before it even can start, won't have valid data, because it is based on flawed assumptions. There is simply no way to know if such dates are accurate.

From the first faulty assumption on the original condition of the rock, to the second faulty assumption, that the rock was stable, never exposed to anything that could alter, slow down, speed up, or deviate, the rock, or it's properties, or rate of decay. Not in 10 million years, or a billion years, would a rock, or fossil, change in such a way!


The problem is not in making assumptions. Some assumptions can lead scientists towards the facts, while others are a dead end, and lead to nothing. It's fine to assume something, which is based on valid evidence.

But the dating methods are based on their own assumptions, which are not proven, at all, cannot be proven, at all. It starts with assumptions, for their own assumptions. Nobody notices it, or even reads it, but they buy it, all the time.



The findings are not reliable, based on flawed assumptions, and cannot be confirmed, and cannot be proven to be true, in any way.


So here again, you ignore all the valid, available evidence -


You cannot even admit to the very EXISTENCE of this evidence. I suppose you're going on the theory where evidence doesn't exist if you don't accept it's existence, never mention it, and completely ignore all requests to address this evidence.... you don't acknowledge the requests were even made, at all!



You haven't argued that it is NOT evidence, because you know it IS evidence, and if you were to dispute that it is evidence, you'd end up looking like a complete idiot. That's why NO evolutionist ever admits to it's very existence.


Billions of humans live on Earth today. They had billions of parents, who had billions of parents, and so on. The billions of humans on Earth will have billions of children, and they will have billions of their own children, and so on.

No human has ever indicated it is 'evolving' into another, different species. Evolution claims all species are continually 'evolving' into different species.

How can you look at all of the species on Earth today, and not admit it is evidence.?

I pulled this from another ATS thread because it relates

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015). It would thus seem reasonable to go to the biggest available “venue” in relation to space and time. The most crucial genes relevant to evolution of hominids, as indeed all species of plants and animals, seems likely in many instances to be of external origin, being transferred across the galaxy largely as information rich virions.

So basically science has now said abiogenesis is basically impossible, so life had to be seeded by something intelligent, and evolution could have taken over from there. That doesn't mean God or god's just a super advanced space faring civilization at the very least.......but the Fermi Paradox is a legitimate cosmological issue in play within this discussion.

originally posted by: BoneSay

I'm sorry i think i wrote what i had in mind in the wrong way, somehow it caused you to feel i'm against you or attacking, i'm not, i don't even know, i wish i had time to fix it up but i don't so i just want to say that even though i don't follow much i respect what you feel and i'm not hating or anything like that, i just had the wrong words at the wrong time

No worries, I didn't mean to sound insulted, I was just defending my statement as matter-of-factly as possible. Your input is encouraged!

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

So basically science has now said abiogenesis is basically impossible, so life had to be seeded by something intelligent, and evolution could have taken over from there.

Then it is only a matter of time until they realize that random mutations creating novel functions can be likened to a monkey writing new code for Microsoft.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So basically science has now said abiogenesis is basically impossible,

Wickramasinghe, et. al? No, that's not what they said. They are big fans of panspermia though, not a word about "miracles."

The most promising venues for the synthesis of prebiotic molecules by Miller-Urey type processes may be found near the centres of galaxies. Explosions of supermassive stars would produce the basic chemical elements necessary to make molecules in high-density mass flows that are then acted upon by ionizing radiation, thus simulating the conditions needed for Miller-Urey type processing.

www.worldscientific.com...

a reply to: Phage

But why the obsession trying to demonstrate that life could occur by random chemical interactions? The genetic code more intuitively was coded for by a Coder. Not to mention the cold vacuum of space would denature the quaternary molecular structure of any organisms residing on an asteroid or interstellar object. The faith required for these theories is much more than faith in an intelligent faculty organizing life in its present form.

a reply to: cooperton

But why the obsession trying to demonstrate that life could occur by random chemical interactions?

Not such an obsession really, but of interest to some scientists indeed. Curiosity. Same thing that showed us that the Earth moves.

a reply to: Phage

Hyper-dogmatic intransigent beliefs in conjectural theories is showing just as much faith in personal beliefs as I am in God.......

This is why I appreciate and respect an agnostic that can say, "life was probably seeded here, I don't know, and nobody really knows", that is being totally intellectually honest based on the known science in late 2018.

The truth is certain groups can't allow themselves to think that thought, because it puts them a micro-step closer to what they despise, thus the cognitive dissonance towards the scientific facts on this topic.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Hyper-dogmatic intransigent beliefs in conjectural theories is showing just as much faith in personal beliefs as I am in God.......

Theories are seldom purely conjectural but theories can change. Can your belief in God?

a reply to: Phage

Then it's the "God Theory".....the timelines can change yes I am totally open to that, based on new science that comes available for things like dinosaurs and the age of the planet.