Laughing at Leftist Science

One of the funniest things that I have ever heard was a leftist referring to his philosophical brethren as the "Reality Based Community." These are the people that do not understand even the simplest forms of supply and demand and they purport to understand REALITY? FMTT.

I have posted numerous times on "evolution" and Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. When I was a very young person, who was just beginning to understand mathematics, I came to the conclusion that the current theory of evolution was impossible by standards that involve simple addition and subtraction. Darwin suggested that animals, plant, and stuff that we see today were the offspring of stuff we saw in the past and that the current stuff was the "most fit."

Hell, I think that I was about three years old when I first saw the problem with this theory. You see, if there were older species that were not fit, then they ended their path of evolution. So, even the most basic math ever known would tell you that there would be billions of failures found that filled that fossil history to support Darwin's theory. Alas, there is zero PHYSICAL evidence of that theory.

Then I found out that Darwinists said that these "evolutionary" creatures did not fossilize. This explanation assumes more than the "Theory of Creationism." See Ediacaran Period. They did kinda fossilize and shit.

I then started looking at the ideas of how the universe was created and the mathematical chances of certain things happening at random like the anti-G_d people said. The closest number that I could find, at that time, was 1:1 with over 40,000 zeros behind it. In other words, the very same chances that you have of waking up with the sun rising in the West with a cock growing from your forehead, gills on your ass, and tentacles.

I dismissed it, because Darwinism is LITERALLY impossible to have occurred by standards set by even the most minimal mathematic standards possible. In other words, The Theory of Natural Selection is FALSE.

Please do not try to convince me, you look silly. MATH DISPROVES YOUR THEORY.

BUT! You simply have to disprove G_d, huh? Okay.

Then, I started learning a little about the "earth sciences." Those do not interest me much, because the study of these fields is even more illogical than Darwinism. If you place our knowledge in the context of knowledge of electricity is barely four thousand years old in the time line of 3.5 billion years, things get even more silly. Please ignore the fact that electricity was not even remotely comprehended until around 1600 or so. Barely four hundred years out of 3.5 BILLION.

Anyhoo, I was still taught that evolution was fact. Man is a direct derivative of a single-celled organism. if you take the most generous number of 3.5 billion years for an atmosphere, then you have to assume that man has evolved from the single-celled organism in that length of time. But! There is a huge problem with that, too!

After doing a minimum of research on this idea, because evolution is already disproven by the MATH necessary for the continuation of the damn fossil record, I happened upon the Cambrian Period of our planet. The Cambrian is utterly ignored by the Darwiniacs, because it disproves their theory a second time.

Here's the current geologic time scale. I use the word "current" because we have only had methods to actually study true science for about one hundred years, about fifty years AFTER Darwin posited his ridiculous "theory" that is disproven by math from the jump.

If you do not know the Cambrian, here's the Wiki. It ended about 400 million years ago, plus or minus because we cannot get within 5 to 10 million years accuracy of that distant of a past. That means that NOW, man must have evolved in FOUR hundred million years. This statement is made because at the very beginning of the Cambrian, there was a MASS EXTINCTION of everything. This kinda flies in the face of the "hundreds of millions" of years necessary for Darwinism to be correct, but let's ignore that, too! (By the way, the Cambrian period shows very, very little evidence of ice for you that believe in the religion of global warming. So, ice is obviously BAD in your efforts to disprove G_d.)

To further put this era in perspective, dinosaurs had not even "evolved" yet. If you forgot your dinosaur "science," they were only around for about 150 million years, from 230 million years ago, to about 65 million years ago, during the Triassic Period.

Remember, modern humans are about 200,000 years old according to modern "science." We are also allegedly the LAST SURVIVING member of the genus HOMO. Allegedly, our last surviving relative died out over 20,000 years ago. So, the time line is becoming more and more compact.

So, you can easily see that simply by what "scientists" publish, this evolution is getting more and more suspect. Since science is supposed to be a series of theories, experiments, and recordings of findings, we must simply assume that with the past 150 years, there must be some kind of record of the findings that support Darwin's theory, right?

There is none. In over 150 years. Not only that, but in that length of time, there have been so many findings that DISPROVE Darwinism that it seems the theory would have been laughed out of the "science" tea parties, but nothing could be further from the truth.

And today, we have "scientists" of the very same stripe, trying to tell us that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not only happening, but that theory is "settled science."

Their settled science includes their screeching that the glaciers shall be GONE, GONE, GONE by the year 2035. Guess what? It was a fucking TYPO. Their "research" and computer models actually told them 2350!!! About the same amount of time that we have taken to actually grasp the basics of electricity and actually put them into USE! Well, let me shit out a golden brick, while running around in circles, with my hands waving madly over my head, in hysterics worrying about disappearing glaciers. In case you were actually concerned, I am vehemently ANTI-GLACIER. Give me the short pants daily.

Maybe these "scientists" struggle to even accumulate the most basic data that can be gathered? Wonder why when this data utterly disproves their theories they must suppress the data?

When you combine batshit craziness with utter stupidity, what do you get? Charles Johnson and his sheer contradictory "evolution?"

By the way, I did not use G_d to disprove any leftist batshit nuts "science." I used basic math and known science. Please libtard, try not to bring up G_d in your rebuttal, you look foolish because you do not even attempt to understand that, you know, kinda like you treat math and science.

Please take the time to comment.