>>9594460
>However, what I'm talking about is basically conventional science.
Okay. Is this conventional science based on facts or beliefs?
>You know, how the glaciers covered the Northeast of the United States down to Long Island about 20K years ago. Conventional science. I call it "the ice age" because that's what it's called.
I'll agree that the term "ice age" is what we are both referring to, as accepted by "conventional" science, if that's what you want to call it.
What I will not agree to is the explanation they are giving about "glaciation" being the primary factor in shaping the landscape, whether it be North America, or anywhere else in the world.
>I'm not going to say that 1 Million years ago the world wasn't covered with a civilization more advanced than the one we have now, but bad vaccines and gmo crops and nasty chemicals killed everyone 1 Million years ago. Maybe.
FYI, we have no idea how old the Earth actually is. I'm not saying it was "created" 6,000 years ago by some big dude in the "heavens". That's actually not what the "creation story" is even about. It's referring to the first "Day", along with the transformation that occurred, forevermore affecting the puny lifeforms that crawl around on the surface. While this may sound like a weird explanation, there's actually a very common scenario within the cosmos that not only would explain that "phenomena", it also happens to provide the a far better explanation as to how "Life" even began than all the "great" minds of modern "conventional" "science" combined.
>But you're acting like quite the asshole when what I'm talking about is conventional mainstream science. It's very well believed that glaciers covered the NE of the US 20K years ago, and they call that the ice age. Am I wrong about this? I'm pretty sure that I'm right.
I'm not trying to be an asshole. I do have to compete against several decades worth of indoctrination. You're right about one thing. It is very well believed. Meaning, there aren't enough facts holding this theory together, unless of course you count the faith of the "scientific" community.
I should probably point out that there were numerous scientific figures that adamantly objected to the mainstream belief of conventional science. They objected on observable evidence, not writings in books. Funny how that works. Conventional science decides to use the word "science" kind of like the pharisees flaunted "God". Try not to take this personal, anon. I have no beef with you, at all.
>You have an alternative theory. Maybe you're right. But you have nothing to support that, and nothing to attack the conventional wisdom except a general theory about how people lie.
I do have evidence to support. Quite a bit actually. The funny part is that while unifromitarians required the long spans of time to avoid the topic of observed accounts, catstrophists can actually point to the written accounts found around the world that corroborate a theory about catastrophic events. Not only that, but there are actually experiments that can be replicated which would support the cataclysmic theories. Sure would be nice if those types of projects would get funded, but oh, would you look at that! Uniformitarians are using up all the money trying to "prove" their ideas, which they know damn well can never be proven as "fact". So, they keep indoctrinating children, so their funds won't dry up, and we never have to address the rampant fraud throughout high-ranking members of the "conventional" "scientific community". You know, the types of people who'll assure you that sex changes are safe and effective because "science". Abortions? No problem! "Science"'ll fix it! Jeffery Epstein? No, he was raping those children. See,"science" says he has a "condition", where he totally needs to ejaculate three or more times a day, and "science" knows best that old wrinkly crocodile hands will chafe his deformed egg-shaped penis (I'm forgetting the proper conventional "scientific" term for that exact specific "condition", but I'm certain if there one thing "science" is capable of is for coming up with big important-sounding names for shit, so they don't have to call it egg-dick-choad, like it is), so "science" says sex-slaved-children are the "cure" for his rare "disease", which all you anons need to be moar sensitive about when posting, because "science says". Also… Global warming
Clown world is not your fault, anon. But I have to be a ruthless as I've become because clown world forced me to be this way. I like science, but only when it is true to the concept itself. Not when it is consensus based. But especially not when the consensus contradicts the observable evidence, and refuses to investigate alternate concepts, in a very similar fashion to the "democratic" party. The party of "science"…