comments:
Watch this in the shroud of Turin: You are way out of date. https://youtu.be/QttVlxa0IRI?si=_F0v3rxXC6TrwPq4 Read this on the real story of Meyer’s article: The Smithsonian illegally pressured the publisher of that article which had nothing to do with its science. It was cronyism. You are selectively avoiding the reality of what happens within “science”. https://www.discovery.org/a/2399/ Unsure of the exact mechanisms? But very sure that they are so complex as to be impossible under Darwinian evolution. It has been proven that there are many impossible requirements for life to have arisen in an evolutionary manner. https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610 And this on Darwin’s own conjecture that life did not originate from matter but that it already existed in simple forms from the very beginning: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/exploring-the-origin-extent-and-future-of-life/philosophical-aspects-of-the-originoflife-problem-the-emergence-of-life-and-the-nature-of-science/3C1B128F567BDDFAA46424EF94560338 And on your argument that theories can only ever be amended, never wrong - for that is what you are implying - read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superseded_scientific_theories Science is as much a belief system as it ever was. You are not surveying the whole body of information available. Of course neither am I because it’s not my main work. But you are being selective - and like I said are way out of date. That’s not really cricket, is it?