Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo

[Smellyoldgit]

Not that anybody with an IQ above that of a plankton reads Poo-Hoo's crap - but if the shithead posts any more spam links to creationist nonsense - he'll be gone.

[carusmm]

Smelly, why not delete the whole thread?

[Smellyoldgit]

Threads like this act as a living testimony to the lies, wrongness and stupidity these con artists propagate. Refutations abound and anybody with half a brain will easily find them. We have no patience with spammers who continually post links to their own shit.

[Pahu]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Not that anybody with an IQ above that of a plankton reads Poo-Hoo's crap - but if the shithead posts any more spam links to creationist nonsense - he'll be gone.

My purpose is to share scientific information that disproves evolution. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientists for that information in order to make my point. If you cannot accept information beyond my ignorant opinions, then you make it impossible for me to communicate. If that is your purpose, then you will succeed, since you have the power to silence me. Perhaps those you are shielding from the facts of science will approve.

[Smellyoldgit]

Scientific information? - apologist tripe entitled "Reincarnation in the Bible"?
.... and you don't think we know who Dan Carlton is?
I think you'll find most here to be nowhere near as gullible and poorly informed as you obviously are. May your god have pity on your lying scabby arse.

[carusmm]

Nonsense is nonsense, and it should be seen as such.

[Pahu]

Here is something you may find interesting:

REAL OR FAKE? GHOSTLY PHOTO MESMERIZES SOCIAL MEDIA

Deadly motorcycle scene shows eerie figure: 'That is freaky'
Published: 2 hours ago

Real or fake? That’s the big question surrounding the latest social media buzz – a photograph posted by a man who says he witnessed the scene of a fatal motorcycle accident from afar, snapped a quick picture, and noticed, while looking at it and posting on Facebook, a shadowy whitish figure hovering above an emergency response official’s head.

The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’

Saul Vazquez of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, posted this to his Facebook page, alongside the photo: “I took this picture just few minutes ago from the cab of my truck it was an accident between Campton and Stanton on the service road just off of the mountain parkway, zoom in and pay attention to the shadow just off the top of the state trooper hat. All I say is I hope everyone involved is okay!!”



The crash victim was taken to the hospital, but later died, the Palm Beach Post reported.

Vazquez told LEX 18 he snapped the photo from the bed of his truck, while driving past the scene, and assures the photograph’s not been tampered with in any way.

His post has been shared more than 8,700 times. And most comments show individuals appear to believe the photo is genuine.

“That’s crazy wild,” wrote one.

“That is freaky,” wrote another.

“Wow, brother that’s amazing,” said another.

And yet another: “I think there’s a person that passed away is watching his looking down on his own body.”

Vazquez interacted with some of the posters, saying he “pulled over, roll[ed down] the passenger side window and snap[ped] the picture.”

Officials said to LEX 18 the crash only involved the motorcyclist.

After that, another poster asked: “Wow. Have you seen how many shares???”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/real-or-f...3dO8XdCcEb7.99

[carusmm]

Ghosts have actually been produced in the lab.

[Smellyoldgit]

Ahh - good ol' WingNutDaily

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is a far-right website and publisher founded by the ridiculously impressively mustachioed Joseph Farah in 1997, as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] WND espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism. WND's coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the very conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. WND makes Fox News look positively moonbatty in comparison. Managing Editor David Kupelian claims that WND "serves as your watchdog on government 365 days a year. We guard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good."[2]
While they present themselves as news, WND is essentially a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions.[3][4] WND are one of the earliest and longest running publishers of Ann Coulter's insipid columns, as well as editorials from such august political analysts as Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and Charlie Daniels[wp]. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John Rocker[wp][5] and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.
The scary thing is, this bilge is actually slightly influential, with made-up bullshit from WND making its way out the mouths of wingnut congressmen and cable TV pundits far too often. Most notably, WND became ground zero for the Birther movement during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.[6]

A trick of the light, a lens smudge or a dose of photoshopping sends the world of wankers into a ghost frenzy. Credulous twats.

[carusmm]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Ahh - good ol' WingNutDaily



A trick of the light, a lens smudge or a dose of photoshopping sends the world of wankers into a ghost frenzy. Credulous twats.

Perhaps they're all just hallucinating, Smelly.

[Pahu]

Unstable Galaxies

Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker,” Science Digest, October 1981, Vol.*89, pp.*12, 116.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Smellyoldgit]

Creationists are just too stupid ....

I really never thought I’d live to see the day where scientific evidence accepted by the vast majority of scientists would suddenly become “opinion” simply because some people don’t like what that science supports.

As if a fact isn’t a fact simply because someone doesn’t like what that fact reveals. It’s like when Neal deGrasse Tyson said during Cosmos that the theory of evolution is as scientifically accepted as the theory of gravity. His point essentially being that you’d be considered insane to deny the existence of gravity, and that’s as scientifically accepted as evolution – something which tens of millions of people don’t believe is real.

As frustrating as it is to hear these creationists like Ken Ham spout off their nonsense, I often find it amusing. Even during his debate with Bill Nye, Ham never proved anything. The basis for his entire “defense” of his position was, “Well, there’s this book…” and that was basically it. Behind every vastly accepted scientific position lies countless hours of research done by some of the smartest people on the planet. And within those scientific positions lie detailed, and often extremely complicated, explanations that prove whatever position they take. It’s like Nye said during his debate, accepted science is something you can use to predict future certain events with accuracy – something the Bible cannot do.

The bottom line is, most creationists are simply too stupid to understand what science actually is. They seem unable to grasp what goes into scientific research, study and ultimately acceptance. They act like their blind faith (which isn’t provable at all), based on the Bible, is the same way scientists come up with their data. As if the Bible and a Biology book stand on equal grounds. They don’t understand that what they believe in is faith – not science. Just because something is written inside of a book that has absolutely no provable methodology behind it, and they like what’s inside, doesn’t make that science.

A biology book isn’t comprised of random hopes written down by whomever felt like writing them. They’re made up of information that’s been thought of, tested, retested and debated over by some of the brightest minds on earth. It’s like Nye said, in science you thirst for new information and realize you don’t have all the answers. To a creationist they believe that they have all the answers, yet have no proof for any of them. These people are just too ignorant to get what science is. They mistake belief for fact, confuse faith for science and act as if scientific research is nothing more than a random set of rules pulled out of thin air – you know, just like the Bible.

[Pahu]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Creationists are just too stupid ....
I really never thought I’d live to see the day where scientific evidence accepted by the vast majority of scientists would suddenly become “opinion” simply because some people don’t like what that science supports.

As if a fact isn’t a fact simply because someone doesn’t like what that fact reveals. It’s like when Neal deGrasse Tyson said during Cosmos that the theory of evolution is as scientifically accepted as the theory of gravity. His point essentially being that you’d be considered insane to deny the existence of gravity, and that’s as scientifically accepted as evolution – something which tens of millions of people don’t believe is real.

Here is what scientists have to say about evolution:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...a/01-evol1.htm

[Pahu]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Creationists are just too stupid ....

It’s like Nye said during his debate, accepted science is something you can use to predict future certain events with accuracy – something the Bible cannot do.

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BiblePr...01lastdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bi...-fulfilled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-pro...iability-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

[Pahu]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Creationists are just too stupid ....

The bottom line is, most creationists are simply too stupid to understand what science actually is. They seem unable to grasp what goes into scientific research, study and ultimately acceptance. They act like their blind faith (which isn’t provable at all), based on the Bible, is the same way scientists come up with their data. As if the Bible and a Biology book stand on equal grounds. They don’t understand that what they believe in is faith – not science. Just because something is written inside of a book that has absolutely no provable methodology behind it, and they like what’s inside, doesn’t make that science.

To a creationist they believe that they have all the answers, yet have no proof for any of them. These people are just too ignorant to get what science is. They mistake belief for fact, confuse faith for science and act as if scientific research is nothing more than a random set of rules pulled out of thin air – you know, just like the Bible.

Science is limited to a study of the physical universe. Actually you have a false notion of creationists and the Bible. Here are the facts:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the...iblical-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scie...the_bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BiblePr...01lastdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bi...-fulfilled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-pro...iability-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.