Michael Hamel

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@PhysInHistory So sad that he had such a high intellectual capacity, yet still missed the most important things, which were right in front of him waiting to be recognized the whole time. May his life be a cautionary tale for those willing to see it.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

Maybe it's puzzling because you are still stuck in this ridiculous Common Descent dogma. Darwin himself would have abandoned it long ago. The data he expected to support it never appeared, even though we have millions of fossils. It doesn't work biologically, geologically, paleontologically, mathematically, or logically. Let it go. Find some better theories that actually work with what we've discovered in the last 150 years, rather than making these silly assertions built on assumptions that have long ago been refuted. Please do science honestly.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@forallcurious This is not representing accurately the very little data we have to go on. Let's not state things as if they were fact when they are really guesses or fantasy-driven dreams. Let's be honest with the science, please.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@djokes247 @forallcurious Yeah, this is the reality of almost every "science" post these days. A bunch of inflated guesses based on assumptions, but represented as if they were confirmed facts. A whole bunch of misrepresentation going on.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@PhysInHistory Evolution (common descent)

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@physorg_com @RSocPublishing There is no evidence for this assertion, and the concept is rather silly given the complexities involved.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

Actually just pointing to a shared Designer. The Theory of Evolution (common descent) doesn't have a mechanism for innovation (information gain), only specialization (information loss). Evolution may have seemed reasonable back when they understood life to be simple. But the amazing intricacy and complexity of life we've since discovered isn't possible with the old tired Evolution dogma. Catch-up to modern science, please.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@Harvey18623162 @PriyaSa98159995 @AMAZlNGNATURE Well, if there is one thing we can know for sure, it's that your vocabulary accurately reflects your intellectual capacity.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

The Theory of Evolution (or common descent) is not a viable explanation for the innovation needed to get from simple life to the complexities and variation we see today. Need to come up with some new theories that fit the data and the more recent scientific discoveries, rather than pushing the old tired ones that now obviously don't work.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

Incorrect. Radiometric dating relies on untestable assumptions. First and foremost is the assumption of the starting conditions. This is only assumed and not testable. Then there is an assumption that there has been no contamination over millions of years (a closed system). This is also not testable over long ages of time. Then there is the assumption of a constant decay rate over long ages which is also not testable. Additionally, there are plenty of examples that have shown these methods to be inconsistent. We have many examples now where rocks of known origination date (recent history in our lifetime) were tested, they incorrectly came back with a date of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years old. Radiometric dating is not at all reliable. I recommend you expand your source material so you are not inadvertently misleading people. Stop propagating bad science.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

Clarification: "Reliable" only based on the standard radiometric assumptions that are built into all methods. If those assumptions are incorrect, then all dates would be invalid. AI should be including this important information rather than leading everyone to believe that radiometric dating is "scientifically proven". Reality is far from it.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@Daniel155214835 @HandyManda @Pathfinder077 @AMAZlNGNATURE LOL

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@HandyManda @Pathfinder077 @AMAZlNGNATURE Carbon, huh? I don't think you've ever looked it up. SMH

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@juicedraticz @Pathfinder077 @AMAZlNGNATURE Carbon dating?! For millions of years? Um . . .

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@ScottRyan16576 @Pathfinder077 @AMAZlNGNATURE Based on unproven assumptions. Let's do the science honestly.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@BigPete2k10 @Rainmaker1973 Sure: when taking all of the data as a whole, it points clearly to Intelligent Design.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

I absolutely agree that one must start with assumptions. But to hold onto those assumptions in the face of clear refuting evidence is ridiculous. Given all of the scientific discoveries in the last 100 years, Darwin himself would have abandoned common descent long ago. The leaders in biological science have, and are looking for new theories, recognizing that neo-Darwinism has no information gaining mechanism to innovate.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@TylorPurdy @Rainmaker1973 What is the actual observation? I see no actual observations or facts in this article.

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@Shuturfivehole @Rainmaker1973 That's quite a statement. What evidence do you have for a lack of education?

[Michael Hamel @uti1ity27]

@GKhan90210 @Rainmaker1973 The base level assumptions are Materialism and Uniformitarianism.