Dude, they're starting with the result that they want and are using the research to support what they already believe! How can you not ****ing see that? Good research lets the results speak for themselves and weighs their results or conclusions against pre existing research. All of the sources that you've posted ignore the fossil record and get bent on some facetious statistics that is built off of false assumptions.
This is the same kind of thing I always see with creationists. Willfully ignoring half of the evidence presented to them, even though it disproves their unproven assumptions that are founded in heady theoretics. That source you just posted undermines the thriving complexity of life, the chaotic nature of the universe that led to that organism, and is still a bad source.
Look at this ****ing quote. Just ****ing look at it.
Quote:
|
We don't find mathematical support for the spontaneous generation of life through various chemicals accidentally bumping into each other.
|
You dumb mother****er. No. No. No! What you just walk around with a microscope and see if there are amino acids being spontaneously created in a chaotic Hadean climate? Of course you ****ing haven't seen that because you're not looking for it and given that it would disprove your little theory, you'd probably ignore that too. (Btw you is to the source, not blankmind).
Quote:
|
However, we do find mathematical support for the biblical claim that man has been on the earth less than 10,000 years.
|
No you dumb ****, that mathematical support is taken from the supposed lineage throughout the Old Testament up to a certain point. I forget exactly where. This entirely disregards carbon dating and in turn demolishes the credibility of this source, as if that was a surprise to anyone.
You ****ing people make me hate life. Have a goddamned reliable source and stick it up your ass.
NOVA - Official Website | How Did Life Begin?