>>19784761Firstly, darwinism is not incompatible with intelligent design. The fact that is was co-opted by fedora tippers and retards just proves how much dumber people are today.
Secondly,
>The idea that if you just give it millions of years it will happen is completely unfounded, baseless, and non-scientific. It's not verifiable, repeatable, or observable.Science is made on those pillars because it's easier to use those foundations in order to get to basic laws, patterns, observable in nature. (I.e resume reality to a set of abstract laws)
But nature by itself it's a mix of chaos (material) and order (life), the latter being also a consequence of the orderly laws of the universe.
No shit it can't be repeatable, can you turn back time or something? Space and time are immutable, your whole argument is based on some supposition that you can duplicate completely an experiment, which you can't. All those terms you mentioned that are "requirements" and "steps" of the scientific methods assume locality, and they abstract reality by leaving out variables they assume are not relevant. No 2 experiments are truly the same, therefore arguing that "lol just because they can't repeat it/replicate it/predict it/ it musn't be true" is based on a logical fallacy: reality is not repeatable.
Also darwinism is completely compatible with (super)determinism : maybe it was a fucking gluon that hit your gene-encoding process that made your father an albino, how are you going to prove that ?
