Evolution...?

[Blake]

Now tell another lie about me, that is all you do, all you ever do.
:lmao

^ another lie

[Blake]

What happened to chump?
He was in here arguing nonsense with me like a crazed man for a while.

I'm sure you'll come up with some vivid fantasy for him like the ones you have about me

[RD2191]

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/11/
Yes, we know. And their parents and Pharaoh were responsible for their deaths. You and your bold text aren't doing much, tbh.

[RD2191]

:lolThis guy.

[Blake]

:lolgets his beliefs from youtube calls me ignorant for not studying evolution. Atheists ladies and gents. I provided answer using only the Bible with my own research. Keep it going bud.

Lol "using only the Bible"

That taught him

[SnakeBoy]

What about my ethical?

^ tucks tail instead of admitting he is a liar.

[Blake]

Lets make this easy, you're driving in a car with your child, sign says "bomb ahead", you keep driving, "bomb ahead-stop", you keep going, "boom." Now, who was responsible for the death of their child because they refused to listen?

What a horrible analogy.

God directly killed these people with a flood.

Period.

[RandomGuy]

There is no argument here. Seeing as you lost, like always, you are bringing something entirely different into the debate. Parents are responsible for their children. There is nothing difficult about it.


If you are killed during Armageddon, that’s it for you. You’re dead and gone for good. Like the people of Noah’s day, it’s assumed that the world will be a raving cesspool of wickedness by that point and that every non-Witness alive will be deserving of death. If you died before Armageddon, however, then you will probably be resurrected and reeducated by Armageddon survivors during Christ’s Millennial Reign (the thousand year period I mentioned earlier). In other words, Witnesses who survive into the Millennial Reign will teach the truth (their religion) to those who are resurrected. If resurrected ones reject these teachings, then they die all over again and that will be it for them too. Hey, that’s how free will works people! Take it or else.

wooo wooo

This shit is funny.

Never learned about the stupid shit the witnesses believe before.

[xmas1997]

^ another lie

I predicted you would do this and right on cue.

So that is lie #4 for you today.

Are you going to go for 5???
:lol

[RandomGuy]

Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That Other Religions Are Demonically Inspired

Demons?

Really?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7nSr0MXZzNs/UdL4b4P--VI/AAAAAAAAjvA/vvMFI3K8jVU/s400/indianwomen.jpg

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!

DEMONS GOT EM....

[RD2191]

:lolClearly lost so is now turning to making fun of religion.

[RD2191]

Yawn, predictable. Ass handed to you again, nothing to see here.

[RandomGuy]

World Governments Are Under Demonic Control

Satan is the ruler of the world and it’s governments, so Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to directly participate in politics or to serve in the military. Doing so would be like joining Satan himself. That means Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t vote, will always find you innocent if they’re forced to serve in a jury (good to know), and view world governments as nothing more than a necessary evil until the beginning of Christ’s Millennial Reign. All armies and human governments will be destroyed during Armageddon, so you don’t want to be a part of them when the big A hits…unless you’re a worldly person. In which case, you’re toast anyway.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/files/2014/05/could-it-be-satan.jpg

Look out the magic evil man underground is comin' to getcha.

Bob, your new nickname is now ChurchLady.

[RandomGuy]

:lolClearly lost so is now turning to making fun of religion.

Nah, just your religion, sport.

The battle for your sanity was lost long before I got here.

[RD2191]

http://www.miskeptics.org/2012/07/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-jehovahs-witnesses/



:lol:sleep

[RD2191]

Step your game up, son. Wipe your face when you're done.

[RD2191]

Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic. :lol

[RandomGuy]

3: All Non-Witnesses Are Part Of Satan’s World

I suppose I could have narrowed these last three into a single heading called, “Trust No One!” But these points each deserve their own explanation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are strongly discouraged from forming strong ties to non-Witnesses, who are also referred to as nonbelievers or as “worldly people.” This is because we worldly types are all part of Satan’s world, or “This System of Things.” That’s right my friends. Whether you know it or not, you are Satan’s unwitting pawn. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, letting a worldly person into their lives represents a threat to their spirituality. Satan could use us to corrupt them, so all worldly people (or all non-Witnesses) are generally assumed to be “bad associates.”

Don’t get me wrong. Witnesses are more than happy to convert us. But if a Witness invites you over to his house, it probably isn’t for the company. Expect to leave with a few magazines or at least a tract before you go.

http://gnosticbent.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/john-lovitz-as-satan-on-saturday-night-live-nbc-getty-images.jpg

ROFL....

I guess that makes my behavior a lot more understandable.

It couldn't possibly be because the jehovah's bible is a bunch of silly superstitions.... nah.

[RD2191]

Never met such a retarded person in my life. The people you find on the internet, amazing.

[RD2191]

Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic. :lol
:wakeup

[RD2191]

xmas, do you agree that RG has gotten his ass handed to him?

[RD2191]

http://www.miskeptics.org/2012/07/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-jehovahs-witnesses/



:lol:sleep
:wakeup

[RD2191]

:cryI think for myself.
:cryI do my own research.
:cryI don't let anyone think for me.

[Blake]

So that is lie #4 for you today.



Another lie ^

[RandomGuy]

2: Women Who Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Always In Subjugation To Men

Like everyone else at your closest Kingdom Hall, women are in subjugation to congregation elders (who are always male) and to their own fathers until the day they move our or get married. (I mean when the women get married, not the fathers.) Even then, they are forever in subjugation to their husbands and are to obey him out of respect for Jehovah’s arrangements and their husband’s “headship” over the family. If a woman is required to take on a responsibility that only a male is normally allowed to carry out, she must wear a head covering. Any head covering, even a book held on top of her head, will do.

Women are not allowed to directly teach, or instruct, from the podium at any Kingdom Hall unless no suitable males can be found. They are allowed to instruct by example, however. Congregation sisters will perform a hypothetical scenario in front of the congregation, sort of like a play. For instance, one sister might pretend to be a householder while another pretends to be a Witness trying to place a magazine with the householder; this serves as an example so others can see how it’s done. It reminds me of my days as a salesman, where management would force us to act out different scenarios at sales meetings. We hated it, but it’s generally regarded as a privilege to perform in front of an audience at a Kingdom Hall if you’re one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gB3pZySAdC4/UNy477wPRTI/AAAAAAAABas/bs8MGwW5l9c/s1600/head_covering.jpg

Because, you know, God really really really cares about pieces of cloth on women's head. It is really really important to HIM.

[RD2191]

Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic. :lol
:wakeup:wakeup

[Blake]

:cryI do my own research.


:lol :lol :lol

[Blake]

xmas, do you agree that RG has gotten his ass handed to him?

Lol "i think for myself"

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic. :lol



1: The Light Gets Brighter As The End Draws Near

In theory, Jehovah’s Witnesses are led by Jesus Christ, who has been delegated authority to lead them by Jehovah God. In practice, they’re really led by a bunch of old guys from a place called Bethel, which is currently in New York. These old guys are called the governing body, and their authority was delegated to them by Jesus. Well, allegedly delegated. Your mileage may vary.

Jesus, it is believed, is guiding the leaders toward the absolute truth in a very subtle, vague sort of way. So subtle that the leaders make mistakes just like everybody else, including people who are not divinely inspired by Jesus. This might lead you to assume that it’s hard to tell someone who’s divinely inspired from someone who merely claims to be. But that you would be a very wrong and obvious thing to say.

The point is that “the truth,” as they understand it, is ever-changing, even though Jehovah and Jesus are not forever changing their minds. These changes are often described as “new light” by the Society’s leaders and are not to be taken as a sign that their leaders are misguided. Instead, it just means they get stuff wrong and Jehovah’s Witnesses shouldn’t let it bug them. The light (or the truth) gets brighter as Armageddon draws near, my friends. So stop relying on your own understanding and trust Jehovah to make it clear in his own good time. (These are things that real Jehovah’s Witnesses say, by the way. No, I’m not kidding.)

Openly flaunting any difference of opinion with the Society’s governing body can get you disfellowshipped for apostasy, especially if you try to convince others that your opinions are right and the leader’s teachings are not. That’s a major no-no in the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’ll get your bus pass into paradise revoked in a heartbeat, buddy. So don’t even go there.

Now your fears become a lot more understandable.

Pitiable even.

It must suck to live in such fear. I can only imagine.

[RD2191]

So now that he has covered multiple topics he will say that I can't reply yet all his material is copy and pasted from website, yawn. Use the Bible to defend your stance and we can keep debating. Otherwise keep making a fool of yourself.

[RD2191]

Lol "i think for myself"

:lol
Is what most atheist claim yet RG is getting his beliefs from evilbible.com and miskeptics.org:lol

[RD2191]

Keep it going, bud. We all saw you get your ass handed to you using only scripture.

[RandomGuy]

Lol "i think for myself"

:lol

He doesn't actually. A bunch of old guys in upstate New York does that for him. I shit you not.

JW's are some of the weirder of the Christian cults, it seems.

[RD2191]

He doesn't actually. A bunch of old guys in upstate New York does that for him. I shit you not.

JW's are some of the weirder of the Christian cults, it seems.
All of my beliefs come from the Bible. Not websites like evilbible.org. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Keep it going, bud. We all saw you get your ass handed to you using only scripture.

If you prefer, I could make fun of you using wikipedia...

Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Society_unfulfilled_predictions


1878: End of the harvest[edit]
In 1876 Russell adopted the belief promulgated by some Adventist preachers that Jesus' parousia, or presence, had begun in 1874 and that the gathering of the little flock preliminary to the grand climax was already in progress. Using a form of parallel dispensations that incorporated "types" and "antitypes"—historical situations that prefigured corresponding situations later in time[8]—he calculated the harvest would extend only to 1878, at which time the gathered saints would be translated into spirit form.[9][10] The year would also bring the beginning of the "exercise of power" of God's kingdom, with evidence that God's favor was returning to the Jews.[11]

The failure of Russell's prediction did not significantly alter the movement's short-term, date-focused orientation. In early 1881 Russell asserted that 1878 had, indeed, been a milestone year, marking the point at which "the nominal Christian churches were cast off from God's favor".[12]

[RandomGuy]

1881: A revised end of the harvest[edit]
By 1881 Russell had found a biblical basis for extending the harvest to a new date, later that year.[4] He explained:

Coming to the spring of 1878 ... we naturally and not unreasonably expected some change of our condition, and all were more or less disappointed when nothing supernatural occurred. But our disappointment was brief, for we noticed that the Jewish church (and not the Gospel church) was the pattern of ours, and therefore we should not expect parallels to Pentecost or to anything which happened in the beginning of this church.[12]

Russell wrote that "the light upon our pathway still shines and is more and more glorious" and that since 1878 the light had glowed stronger. The timing of their translation to heaven seemed nearer, he wrote: "We know not the day or hour, but expect it during 1881, possibly near the autumn where the parallels show the favor to Zion complete and due to end, the door to the marriage to shut, and the high calling to be the bride of Christ, to cease."[12]

The second failure in 1881 precipitated a more serious crisis in the Bible Student ranks and for several years Russell's followers waited for the belated translation to occur.[4] Russell's chronological timetable had already identified 1914 as the ultimate end of the "time of trouble", and this preserved the commitment of followers who might have been discouraged by their failed expectations for 1881.[13] Yet many members found it inconceivable that their earthly departure might be delayed that long. Russell consoled members with the news that 1881 had still marked the time when "death became a blessing" in the sense that any saint who died would henceforth be instantaneously changed into a spirit being.[14] The revised view provided comfort for early believers who had held the view that the living faithful would never experience a physical death, and yet had seen other members in fact dying while they awaited their upward call. After 1881 physical death was defined as one of the ways in which some of the saints might undergo their translation.[4]

But but, I was just a little wrong.. Jesus is juuuuust around the corner.

[RandomGuy]

1914: The end of human rulership[edit]
Russell's Studies in the Scriptures series had explicitly identified October 1914 as the "full end of the times of the Gentiles" and consequently the "farthest limit" of human rulership.[15] It would bring the beginning of Christ's millennial reign[1] and all his followers expected the immediate "translation of the saints" to rule with the revealed Christ that year. Following the earth's tribulation and unrest, the Jews would return to God's favor, the "nominal Church" would have fallen, the final battle between Christ and Satan would have ended, the kingdoms of the world would be overthrown, and Christ would have gathered his saints into heaven, where they would reign with him, and when the millennium would begin.[1] The belief was unequivocal, based on his study of the Bible and the Great Pyramid, and satisfied only upon the establishment of an earthly paradise; Russell remarked that by altering the prophecy even one year would destroy the perfect symmetry of its biblical chronology.[16] In the second book of his Studies in the Scriptures series he described it as "an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914".[17] The result, he wrote, was that "all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved",[17] along with the destruction of "what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom".[18] In an 1894 Watch Tower, responding to readers who questioned whether—because of recent political upheavals—the world could last until 1914, he wrote:

We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.[19]

As 1914 approached, excitement mounted over the expected "change" of anointed Christians.[4] Early that year some Bible Students, convinced the end of the world had arrived, began distributing their material belongings, abandoning their jobs and eagerly anticipating the future.[20] In May 1914—five months from the expected end—Russell warned followers against succumbing to doubt:

There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together ... The great crisis, the great clash ... that will consume the ecclestiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near.[21]

But by September, Russell was preparing Watch Tower readers for the possibility that "Armageddon may begin next spring, yet it is purely speculation to attempt to say just when." Yet the evidence, he wrote, still pointed "to the year just before us—particularly the early months".[22]

No really, this time I mean it... ROFL....

[RD2191]

A I said, my beliefs come from the Bible and my stance has been defended only using the Bible. I am not using any other books. Nice strawman by the way.

[RandomGuy]

When again nothing took place, predictions regressed to their earlier short-term orientation. The Watch Tower wrote: "It may be that many of the Lord's people were expecting more than they should have looked for to occur with the opening of the Jewish year 1915, which began with September 21. The human mind seems to have a natural tendency, and one with which we should have sympathy, to expect matters to culminate more rapidly, fulfillments to come more suddenly, than they ever do come ... Studying God's Word, we have measured the 2520 years, the Seven symbolic Times, from that year 606 B.C. and have found that it reached down to October, 1914, as nearly as we were able to reckon. We did not say positively that this would be the year. We merely left every one to look at the facts of history and reckon for himself."

Shocker.

[RD2191]

That has been covered at JW meetings, nothing of importance.

[RD2191]

A I said, my beliefs come from the Bible and my stance has been defended only using the Bible. I am not using any other books. Nice strawman by the way.
:wakeup

[Blake]

Keep it going, bud. We all saw you get your ass handed to you using only scripture.

Scripture says God murdered everyone but Noah's family.

It kicks it's own ass.

[Avante]

I take it nobody has proven evolution, right?

50 pages....hmmmm?

[RandomGuy]

A I said, my beliefs come from the Bible and my stance has been defended only using the Bible. I am not using any other books. Nice strawman by the way.

Your stance has to be defended using only the bible and the interpretations of it.

Does your interpretation of the bible differ from the Governing Body, Mr. Free Thinker?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

I take it nobody has proven evolution, right?

50 pages....hmmmm?

Yes, actually, I did.

Which you probably didn't bother reading.

[RD2191]

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.
10. The Discovery of Vulcanhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/le_verrier_500px-235x300.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/le_verrier_500px.jpg)

Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.
9. Spontaneous Generationhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/aristotle-250x300.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/aristotle.jpg)

Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.
How it was Proven Wrong:
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.
8. The Expanding Earthhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Growing_earth.gif (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Growing_earth.gif)

Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.
7. Phlogiston Theoryhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/stahl-244x300.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/stahl.jpg)

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.
6. The Martian Canalshttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Marscanals2.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Marscanals2.jpg)

The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.
How it was Proven Wrong:
ADVERTISEMENT

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.
5. Luminiferous Aetherhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0624+aether.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0624+aether.jpg)
The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”
4. The Blank Slate Theoryhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tabularasa450-560x314.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tabularasa450.jpg)

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.
How it was Proven Wrong:
While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

3. Phrenologyhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/phrenology.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/phrenology.jpg)

Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.

How it was Proven Wrong:
Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.
2. Einstein’s Static Universehttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Universe-560x369.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Universe.jpg)

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.
1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusionhttp://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cold-fusion-timejpg-300x400.jpg (http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cold-fusion-timejpg.jpg)

While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.

[RD2191]

:lmaoScience, so stupid. Always getting shit wrong. See how easy that is?

[xmas1997]

Another lie ^

I predicted it, lie #5. Going for 6? Why stop now? That's all you do. :lmao

[RD2191]

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

[RandomGuy]

1918: The new terminus[edit]


J.F. Rutherford
Russell's final revision of his predictions was to identify 1918 as the new terminus.[4][26] The shift was based on the reasoning that the period of the Jews' favor may have lasted until 73CE (the date of the Zealots' mass suicide at Masada), rather than 70 CE. For the modern-day parallel, the adjustment meant the conclusion of the 40-year "harvest period" was moved from 1914 to the northern spring of 1918.[1][27][28]

More failure...

[RD2191]

Piltdown ManFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with The Piltdown Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Piltdown_Men).
"Piltdown" redirects here. For the village in East Sussex, see Piltdown, East Sussex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown,_East_Sussex).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Piltdown_gang_%28dark%29.jpg/300px-Piltdown_gang_%28dark%29.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piltdown_gang_(dark).jpg)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.24wmf17/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piltdown_gang_(dark).jpg)
Group portrait by John Cooke, 1915. Back row (from left): F O Barlow, G ****** Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafton_******_Smith), Charles Dawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dawson), Arthur Smith Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Smith_Woodward). Front row: A S Underwood, Arthur Keith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith), W P Pycraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Plane_Pycraft), and Sir Ray Lankester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Lankester).


The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil) remains of a previously unknown early human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution). These fragments consisted of parts of a skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skull)and jawbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mandible), said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit atPiltdown, East Sussex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown,_East_Sussex), England. The Latin name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature) Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dawson)) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan) deliberately combined with the cranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranium) of a fully developed modern human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_human).
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

[RD2191]

More failure.

[RD2191]

Archaeological Forgeries
There is no fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. Despite the fact that no complete "transitional form" fossil has ever been found, the theory of evolution is taught more than ever in classrooms around the world. We keep finding more and more huge burial sites of dinosaurs, which are supposedly 65 million years old, yet we cannot find a single skeleton of a half man, half ape, pre-human being. Such fossils should stand a much better chance of being preserved, since they would only be maybe tens of thousands of years old, not millions as with the dinosaurs (in the evolutionist's timeline). Now why do you suppose this is? Maybe simply because evolution never happened? If evolution were true, we would find at least thousands of skeletons of the "transitional" skeletons shown in the evolutionist drawing below. Now if I were a believer in evolution, I would need to seriously question my faith in the absence of any such skeletons.

http://www.6000years.org/graphics/evolution-of-man.gif
But since there aren't any such skeletons, one of the interesting methods evolutionists employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find.
Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of 'finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax.
Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

Piltdown Man
In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man". Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject. While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man.
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than a few thousand years old.
It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.65 In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"66 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
Nebraska Man
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name", Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
Ota Benga
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.68
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.
Java Man - Pekin Man
Fossils discovered on the islands of Java in 1891 and 1892 were given the name Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus). Fossils discovered near Peking (Beijing) in 1923-1927 were given the name Pekin Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis). In 1939, however, two experts, Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich, revealed that both were actually normal human beings. And Ernst Mayr from Harvard University had classified both as human in 1944.
Neanderthal Man
After the first specimens were discovered in the Neander Valley in 1856, evolutionists suggested that Neanderthals were primitive ape-men. Subsequent archaeological discoveries, however, revealed that there was no scientific basis to that claim. Erik Trinkhaus, an expert on the subject of the Neanderthals and also an evolutionist, has admitted that, “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”
In addition, the size of the Neanderthal Man skull—200 cubic centimeters greater than that of present-day humans—reveals the invalidity of the claim that it was an intermediate form between humans and apes.
The Taung Child
A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor—because it subsequently transpired that the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine.
Ramapithecus
A partial jawbone, consisting of two parts, was discovered by G.E. Lewis in India in the 1930s. Based on these two jaw bone fragments, claimed to be 14 million years old, evolutionists reconstructed Ramapithecus’s family and supposed natural habitat. For fifty years, the fossil was portrayed as an ancestor of Man but following the results of a 1981 anatomical comparison with a baboon skeleton, evolutionists were forced to quietly set it aside.
Australopithecines
Australopithecines are a group of extinct apes closely related to modern chimpanzees and orangutans. Although many evolutionists use the remains of these extinct apes to try to prove human evolution, the weight of scientific evidence indicates clearly that australopithecines, such as Ardipithecus (ARDI) and Australopithecus Afarensis (LUCY), were only primeval apes and not the evolutionary ancestors of humankind.
Lucy


This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with. The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.In a recent study, Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s lower jaw bone is some kind of gorilla jaw bone. Other parts of the skeleton are just like the bones of knuckle-dragging, tree-climbing gorillas. Yet Lucy has been Evolutionism's poster child. Very creatively designed sculptures of Lucy appear in tax-funded museums, and these sculptures are hoaxes, not following the obvious ape-like bone structures, but rather dishonestly presenting Lucy as if she had human-like bone structures. This is typical Evolutionary flim-flam. Evolutionists fool themselves first because of their confirmation bias. Everything looks like part of the evolutionary dream, because or Evolutionism's presupposition.
As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims. In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man.
See creation.com/no-more-love-for-lucy (http://creation.com/no-more-love-for-lucy) for more info.

[RD2191]

:lmao

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[RD2191]

http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes

[RD2191]

So at the end of the day I was right and RG was wrong about a parent being responsible for their child.

[RandomGuy]

Scripture says God murdered everyone but Noah's family.

It kicks it's own ass.

Read up on the idiots running the Jehovah's Witness cult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Society_unfulfilled_predictions

You can't make this shit up.

They have, rightly, shut the fuck up about "jesus is juuust around the corner" recently, though.

The kinds of bullshit excuse-making required to still believe this bunch is credible explains Churchlady Bob's penchant for ignoring and making excuses.

[Blake]

50 pages....hmmmm?

Avante pining for a pat on the head for a thread he barely participated in

http://rlv.zcache.co.nz/excellent_job_gold_sticker-r230386c98cdb4c7b91e0d0a495c1e538_v9wth_8byvr_324. jpg

[RD2191]

By Editorial Staff
Published December 22, 2007
The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”
If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“1
This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. (“Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)
But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let’s examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered.
The age is “estimated” to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments.2 There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.
What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.
And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.3
Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber.4 This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.
But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).
After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that “similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints.” After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: “If you don’t believe homology, then you don’t believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!“5
What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?
What about Dr. Johanson’s credibility? To his credit, he does talk about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) bones; “When it comes to finding a new ‘star’ as our animal ancestor, there is no business like bone business.“6
Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, “By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium.“7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary “ancestor”, we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.

[RD2191]

:lmao:downspin:

[RD2191]

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

[Avante]

Yes, actually, I did.

Which you probably didn't bother reading.

Bullshit!

[Blake]

:lmaoScience, so stupid. Always getting shit wrong. See how easy that is?

scientists never claim to get it right every time.

But the Bible does.

And it's always getting shit wrong.

[RD2191]

The Stone Age Discoveries of Shinichi Fujimura, 2000

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/2000fujimura.gif
One of the 'smoking gun' photographs that showed Fujimura burying artifacts
As a young man, Shinichi Fujimura developed an interest in Japan's pre-history and taught himself archaeology. Soon he was making spectacular finds that caught the attention of researchers around the world. By the age of 50, he had established himself as one of Japan's leading archaeologists.

Fujimura's first major discovery occurred in 1981 when he found stoneware that dated back 40,000 years — the oldest stoneware ever found in Japan. After this discovery his career, and reputation, took off. During the following years, he worked on over 150 archaeological projects around Japan, managing to consistently find increasingly older artifacts that pushed back the limits of Japan's known pre-history. His skill at finding ancient artifacts was so great that a rumor began to spread that he had "divine hands."

Fujimura's career was buoyed by the popularity of archaeology in Japan. Japanese book shops have entire sections devoted to Stone Age Japan, and archaeological discoveries frequently make the front pages of newspapers. School children were taught about Fujimura's finds, and many textbooks contained photographs of Stone Age artifacts discovered by him.

In 2000, Fujimura was excavating a prehistoric site near the town of Tsukidate in the Miyagi Prefecture, about 186 miles northeast of Tokyo. Work at the dig had been proceeding for a while, and a number of important finds had already been made. The town of Tsukidate was enjoying the tourism trade the site attracted. It had created a signature drink, "Early Man," that it sold to tourists, and it had changed its official slogan to "The town with the same skies viewed by early man."

On October 22, 2000 Fujimura and his team announced the discovery of a cluster of stone pieces they believed to be the work of primitive people. They also found several holes that, they hypothesized, had held pillars supporting primitive dwellings. The stones and holes were believed to be over 600,000 years old, making them one of the oldest signs of human habitation in the world. For this reason, the discovery drew international attention.

But on November 5 the Mainichi Shimbun published three pictures on its front page showing Fujimura digging holes at the site and burying artifacts he later dug up and announced as major finds. The artifacts were supposedly Stone Age rocks that had been modified by humans for cutting and scraping. The Mainichi Shimbun had taken the photographs in secret, but did not publish them until it confirmed with Fujimura that he had indeed buried the artifacts himself.

At a press conference on November 5 Fujimura confessed he had planted Stone Age artifacts at the site, and had faked many discoveries. He kept his head bowed in shame during the conference and said, "I was tempted by the Devil. I don't know how I can apologise for what I did... I wanted to be known as the person who excavated the oldest stoneware in Japan."

Fujimura admitted he had planted 27 of the 31 pieces found at the Miyagi site. He also admitted he had planted all 29 pieces found earlier in the year at the Soshinfudozaka archeological site in Shintotsugawa, in the north of Japan. Suspicion was immediately cast over all the sites he had ever worked on in Japan.

The revelations shocked the nation and angered Fujimura's colleagues. Hiroshi Kajiwara, a professor at Tohoku Fukushi University, said, "My 20 years of research are ruined . . . Why on earth did he do such a stupid thing?"

Inevitably the question was raised of how Fujimura could have gotten away with such an elaborate deception for so long. Part of the reason lay in the difficulty of dating stone implements. They can only be dated by the stratum in which they are found, meaning that it is almost impossible to differentiate between planted artifacts and real ones.

Some researchers did claim they had noticed that Fujimura's discoveries did not appear to be adequately stained considering their supposed internment for thousands of years. But they had been reluctant to challenge Fujimura on this point because of his strong reputation.

In the wake of the revelations, Fujimura was dismissed from his position as a senior researcher at the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute. Publishers frantically tried to find and correct the pictures of his artifacts they had included in their textbooks.

This was not the first time the Japanese archaeological community had been fooled by a hoax. In 1931 it was duped by an amateur archaeologist named Nobuo Naora who discovered what he claimed was the hip bone of a primitive man. Naora even got round to giving his find an official name: 'Akashi Genjin,' after the location where he supposedly found it in the Hyogo Prefecture.

[RD2191]

The Piltdown Chicken, 1999

http://hoaxes.org/images/piltdownchicken.jpg
The Piltdown Chicken
(artist's reconstruction)
The National Geographic Society held a press conference on October 15, 1999 to announce a major discovery: It had found a 125-million-year-old fossil in northeastern China that appeared to be the long-sought missing link between dinosaurs and birds. For over twenty years paleontologists had debated whether birds were descended from dinosaurs. This fossil seemed to provide conclusive proof they were.

In addition to the press conference, held at the National Geographic's corporate headquarters, the Society simultaneously published a glossy article about the find in its well-known magazine.

The fossil bird, when living, would have been about the size of a large chicken, or a turkey. But it would have been a turkey that bore the long tail of a dinosaur. It was this mixture of dinosaur and bird parts that made researchers believe they had found the dinosaur-bird missing link. As Christopher Sloan, author of the National Geographic article, enthusiastically wrote, "Its long arms and small body scream 'Bird!' Its long, stiff tail... screams 'Dinosaur!'"

What Sloan didn't realize at the time, was that the body and tail together should have screamed 'Fake!'

Xu Xing, a Chinese scientist who had initially helped to identify the fossil, eventually realized it was a fraud when he found a second fossil containing an exact, mirror-image duplicate of the Archaeoraptor's tail, but attached to a different body. Fossil stones, when taken from the ground, often cleave in two, producing two mirror-image sets of fossil slabs. Evidently someone had taken one of the slabs bearing the tail fossil and affixed it to a fossil of a bird, thereby producing a hybrid dinosaur-bird creature.

National Geographic published an admission of its mistake in March 2000 and a fuller analysis of how it had been duped in October of that year. It admitted red flags had been raised about the discovery at various points, but that it had failed to see them. More seriously, it acknowledged rushing its find into publication before more scholarly journals had the chance to peer-review the data.

U.S. News & World Report was the first to refer to the Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis forgery as the case of the Piltdown Chicken, alluding to the infamous Piltdown Man (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_piltdown_man/) hoax of 1912.

[Blake]

Bullshit!

^ slow

[RD2191]

The Sokal Hoax, 1996
An article bearing the portentous title "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" ran in the Spring 1996 issue of the cultural studies journal Social Text. At first glance the article appeared to be an unlikely candidate for controversy. It was written in the typical style of academic articles, slightly overbearing and verbose, and it came armored with a bristling flank of footnotes (more footnotes than actual text). But on the day that the Spring issue of Social Text appeared in print, the author of the article, New York University physics professor Alan Sokal, published a letter in the academic trade publicationLingua Franca revealing his article was actually intended as a parody, a fact which the editorial board of Social Text had failed to recognize.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1996sokaltext02.jpg
Social Text, No. 46/47, Spring - Summer, 1996

"Any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof," Sokal asserted. He suggested that his article's acceptance by the journal pointed to "an apparent decline in the standards of rigor in certan precincts of the academic humanities." He also fumed over "how readily they [Social Text] accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda."

The New York Times ran the story of Sokal's revelation on its front page on May 18, and from there the controversy grew.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1996sokaltext01.jpg
The New York Times — May 18, 1996

The Article's Content

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1996sokal.jpg
Alan Sokal
In his spoof article, Sokal made the case that recent developments in the scientific concept of 'quantum gravity' pointed the way toward a future in which science would be freed from the "tyranny of 'absolute truth' and 'objective reality.'" Or, to put it another way, he argued that the traditional concept of gravity was just a capitalist fiction that would be made irrelevant by the socialist/feminist/relativist theory of 'quantum gravity.'

Sokal assumed that this argument should have been self-evidently absurd. An excerpt from the article follows:

Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science — among them, existence itself — become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science.
Reaction

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1996ross.gif
Andrew Ross
The hoax elicited many different reactions, but the most common response was laughter.Social Text, and by extension the rest of the cultural studies community, had been made to look like egghead intellectuals adrift in their ivory tower.

Social Text responded angrily and self-righteously to the parody, but only succeeded in digging itself deeper into the hole that it had fallen into.

Social Text prided itself on its embrace of radical politics and controversial views. Since its founding in 1979 it had published a variety of articles that were highly influential within the cultural studies community, including pieces by intellectual luminaries such as Cornel West and Michel de Certeau. Its editor, Andrew Ross, who cultivated an image as a hip, radical, intellectual celebrity, set the tone that the journal followed. Nevertheless, the truth was that the journal was not used to receiving much attention outside of its readership base, which was a small, elite group of academics numbering in the hundreds. It was certainly totally unprepared when Sokal's article landed it at the center of an international whirlwind of controversy.

The Social Constructionist Controversy
One of Sokal's specific targets that he designed his hoax to ridicule was the cultural studies concept of "social construction." Cultural studies, he claimed, advanced a destabilizing idea of cultural relativity that professed all forms of knowledge (voodoo, astrology, chemistry, etc.) to be of equal worth, because all were 'socially constructed.' The cultural studies community fiercely objected to this characterization of their ideas, but generally their objections were ignored.

In this way, the Sokal hoax brought to light the cultural schism that had come to separate the humanities from the sciences in the American university system. Humanities departments had grown progresively more radical and liberal since the 1960s, flirting with and often openly embracing ideas such as socialism and cultural relativity. The sciences, on the other hand, fed by massive Cold War funds funneled to them through the Department of Defense, had remained far more conservative (though only in comparison to their counterparts in the humanities). The two had, for the most part, lived peacefully side by side until the humanities began turning their analytical tools upon the sciences themselves. When this happened, the scientists fought back. The Spring issue of Social Text in which Sokal's article appeared had, in fact, been devoted to a study of the so-called 'Science Wars' between the sciences and the humanities.

The Sokal hoax recalled the satirical tactics that had been used to discredit modernizing influences in art and poetry during the early decades of the twentieth century, such as the Spectric poetry hoax (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/spectric_poetry/) of World War One and the Disumbrationist art movement (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_disumbrationist_school_of_art/) of the 1920s.

[Blake]

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

So much for doing your own research

[RD2191]

Margaret Mead and the Samoans, 1925
In 1925, 24-year-old Margaret Mead traveled to Samoa where she stayed for nine months conducting anthropological research. On her return she wrote Coming of Age in Samoa (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688050336/?tag=themuseumofho-20), which was published in 1928. She portrayed Samoa as a gentle, easy-going society where teenagers grew up free of sexual hang-ups. Premarital sex, she claimed, was common. Rape was unheard of. Young people grew to adulthood without enduring the adolescent trauma typical in western countries. She used these findings to support her thesis that culture, not biology, determines human behavior and personality. The book became an anthropological classic, read by generations of college students.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1925margmead.jpg
Margaret Mead (left) poses with the daughter of a chief.
The picture was taken in 1925, during her stay in Samoa.

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1928samoa.jpg

However, in 1983 New Zealand anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged her claims. He argued that the reality of Samoan culture was very different from what Mead had portrayed. Samoans, he insisted, actually had rather puritanical attitudes about sex. Rape was common. Men were aggressive. Premarital sex was disapproved of. In fact, a great emphasis was placed upon a woman being a virgin when marrying.

Freeman subsequently suggested that Mead had been the victim of a hoax, played upon her by the teenage girls she had interviewed. They had lied to her, inventing wild tales about premarital sex to impress her. Freeman even tracked down one of her informants (by then an old woman) who admitted exactly this.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1925freeman.jpg

The issue remains controversial, though subsequent research has tended to favor Freeman's position. Freeman's supporters point out that Mead knew little of the Samoan language when she did her research, conducting interviews through a translator. She didn't remain in Samoa long enough to become truly familiar with the culture, and she relied on information from a relatively small group of young women.

But Mead's supporters note that Samoan culture changed dramatically between the 1920s and 1980s, becoming much more conservative. Also, it was more likely that the informants would lie to Freeman, a middle-aged man, than to Mead, a young woman close to them in age.

Mead's later ethnographic work, from the 1930s, has also been criticized for having factual errors. For instance, she claimed that the Mountain Arapesh, a tribe of New Guinea yam gardeners, were pacifists, having no knowledge of the concept of war. Other researchers contend that the opposite is true — that approximately half the adult male Arapesh had killed people in battle.

[RD2191]

The Case of the Midwife Toad, 1926

http://s3.amazonaws.com/hoaxipedia/kammerer.jpg
Paul Kammerer
If a person acquires a limp during their lifetime, can that limp be passed on to their children? Or if a person acquires a scar, will that scar be hereditary? Modern scientific theory denies this is possible, but a theory called Lamarckianism held that not only was it possible, but it was the means by which evolutionary change occurred.

During the 1920s, Austrian scientist Paul Kammerer designed an experiment involving a species called the Midwife Toad to prove that Lamarckian inheritance was possible.

Most toads mate in water. As a result they have black, scaly bumps on their hindlimbs that help them hang onto each other while they mate. The Midwife Toad, by contrast, mates on land and lacks these bumps. Kammerer wanted to demonstrate that if the Midwife Toad was forced to mate in water, it would eventually acquire the same bumps that naturally water-mating toads possessed — and that the toad's offspring would inherit these bumps via Lamarckian inheritance.

Kammerer filled a fishtank full of water, placed some Midwife Toads in it, and then waited as generations of toads were born and died. Finally he announced success. A generation of Midwife Toads had been born with black scaly marks on their hindlimbs. This appeared to prove that Lamarckian inheritance was possible.

The scientific community was stunned. If true, Kammerer's results would have turned the entire edifice of evolutionary theory on its head, forcing scientists to reevaluate everything they knew about the process of inheritance.

However, when Dr. G.K. Noble, Curator of Reptiles at the American Museum of Natural History, examined Kammerer's famous toads, he discovered that the toads didn't actually possess black, scaly marks on their hindlimbs. Instead, they displayed subcutaneous inkspots where someone had injected black ink beneath the surface of their skin.

When the fraud was unveiled in 1926, Kammerer was humiliated. He insisted he hadn't injected ink into the toads and suggested one of his lab assistants might have done it.

Whoever might have committed the fraud, it was Kammerer that bore the fallout from it. His reputation was ruined. A few days later he committed suicide. With him went the case for Lamarckian inheritance.

[RandomGuy]

^ tucks tail instead of admitting he is a liar.

Meh. I am happy to admit I get something wrong, and never purposefully make things up.

When corrected I always acknowledge it.

If you want to claim I lie, then you will have to show exactly how.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

My prediction:

You won't, since you are a lazy shit. Prove I'm lying about that.

[RD2191]

The Piltdown Man, 1912

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/piltdown.jpg
Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown man skull
During the early twentieth century the scientific community was eagerly searching for the fossil 'missing link' that would prove an evolutionary relationship between man and apes. In 1907 a jawbone was found in Germany that displayed characteristics of both species. This was the best evidence for a missing link yet, but scientists still wanted something better, something more definitive.

Enter Charles Dawson and the Piltdown Man. Charles Dawson was a solicitor who lived in southern England, near Sussex. He was also an enthusiastic amateur paleontologist. In 1908 some workmen, knowing his interest in fossils, presented him with curious bone fragments that they had found while working in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown. Dawson's interest was piqued and he soon began conducting his own excavation in the pit. Eventually he enlisted the aid of Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the Department of Geology at the British Museum.

The real excitement begin in 1912 when Dawson, with Woodward working nearby, found two skull fragments and a very curious jawbone. Given the proximity of the skull fragments and the jawbone to each other, Dawson and Woodward concluded they must have belonged together... that, in fact, they must have been part of the very same skull. This made them extremely excited because, taken as a whole, the skull displayed characteristics of both man and ape. The jaw was ape-like, whereas the upper skull fragments were definitely human. If the jaw and skull fragments did come from the same creature, then they had found the missing link.

Presented to the scientific community


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/dawson.jpg
Charles Dawson (right) at the Piltdown site
In December, 1912 Woodward displayed a reconstruction of the skull at a meeting of the Geological Society of London. Woodward argued that it was the skull of a man, whom he called Piltdown man (after the location where it had been found). He argued that it came from a human who had probably lived about half a million years ago, during the Lower Pleistocene period.

Woodward's claim immediately caused an enormous stir within the scientific community. Many felt that the jawbone and skull were simply too dissimilar to belong together. The jaw, they said, looked far more apish than one would expect to find attached to a high-vaulted, human skull. But Woodward's backers eventually won out and the new species entered the textbooks as Eoanthropus dawson, or "Dawson's Dawn Man."

Over the next few years more fossil objects continued to turn up in the Piltdown pit: animal bones, an object that looked like a cricket bat, and two more skulls. Then, in 1916, Dawson died, leaving Woodward as the main advocate for the Piltdown man.

Proven to be a fake


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/piltdownpub.jpg
The Piltdown Man Pub in Piltdown, England
For over three decades the Piltdown skull was accepted by the scientific community as an authentic artifact. But as more skeletons of early man were found, it became clear that the Piltdown Man was radically unlike anything else in the fossil record. Therefore in 1953 a team of researchers at the British Museum (Kenneth Oakley, Wilfred Le Gros Clark, and Joseph Weiner) subjected the skull and jawbone to a rigorous series of tests. What they found was shocking. The skull was a fake.

Using a fluorine-based test to date the skull, the researchers determined that the upper skull was approximately 50,000 years old. The jawbone, however, was only a few decades old. A second test, using nitrogen analysis, confirmed the first test. They also found that the jaw had been artificially stained with potassium dichromate to make it appear older. The British Museum researchers argued that someone must have taken the jawbone and teeth of a modern ape, probably an orangutan, and stained them in order to make them look ancient. These artifacts, the jaw and skull fragments, must then have been planted at the Piltdown site.

Having proven fraud, the question that remained was who had been responsible for the deception. Woodward had a strong reputation for honesty, and his innocence was generally acknowledged. Dawson, instead, was fingered as the likely culprit. His motive for perpetrating the hoax was complex, since he never profited from it financially. But it seemed likely that he had done it to gain scientific fame and recognition. After the British Museum team published their findings, it was then discovered that Dawson had trafficked in other fake antiquities. This seemed to confirm that he probably was the culprit behind the Piltdown man hoax.

Today most still agree with the verdict that Dawson was the hoaxer, but controversy continues to simmer. Some argue that Dawson worked with an accomplice, perhaps Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a young priest who briefly participated in the dig. Others place the blame elsewhere entirely. Martin Hinton, an employee at the British Museum whom Woodward once refused a job, has been implicated ever since a boxful of artificially stained bones that may have belonged to him was discovered in 1975. Even Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes novels, has been named as a possible suspect. Doyle lived near Piltdown and had a strong interest in paleontology.

Whoever perpetrated the crime, it is considered to be one of the most damaging scientific hoaxes of all time, because it set the development of evolutionary theory back for years while researchers labored pointlessly to integrate a fake skull into the fossil record.

[Blake]

So at the end of the day I was right and RG was wrong about a parent being responsible for their child.

Father God killed his own children

[RandomGuy]

Pissing on the elders in New York seems to have pissed Churchlday Bob off.

I win the internets.

Yay.

[RD2191]

Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1887
When the six-volume Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography was published between 1887 and 1889, it was one of the first and most definitive works of its kind in America. It contained biographical information about thousands of people (some famous, some obscure) in American history. It was hailed as a valuable source of information for both scholars and students alike.

But thirty years after the Cyclopedia's initial publication, questions began to be raised about its reliability. The botanist Dr. John Hendley Barnhart published a brief article in the Journal of the New York Botanical Gardensuggesting some of the Cyclopedia's biographical sketches might be fictitious. He had specific doubts about fourteen botanists. He had never heard of these people, nor could he find references to them anywhere else.

As other researchers began to fact check the Cyclopedia, more and more false entries were found. To date over 200 suspicious entries have been flagged. But due to the enormity of the work it's doubtful that all of the false information it contains will ever be identified.

Almost all the false sketches found to date describe pre-nineteenth century European scientists who traveled to the New World to study its natural history. Some of these false biographies are more obvious than others. For instance, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, identified as a French botanist, almost exactly parallels the real life of Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose biography also appears in the Cyclopedia). The biography of Nicolas Henrion, a French scientist, reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, just as the Asiatic cholera broke out there. However, epidemic Asiatic cholera first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, a Brazilian historian, was said to have been presented with a gold medal by the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820, even though this society was not founded until 1838.

Most of the false entries are fairly dry, but a few are more colorful, such as that of Jean Pierre de Vogué (http://hoaxes.org/vogue.html), a Flemish adventurer who apparently ended his days wandering through the Brazilian rainforest in search of the fabled "Mountain of Wealth," and the Spanish geographer Andres Vicente y Bennazar (http://hoaxes.org/bennazar.html) who reportedly published a map of the world clearly displaying both North and South America sixteen years before Columbus sailed to the Americas.

The author (or authors) of the false entries is not known, but the motive for writing the pieces was probably financial since contributors to the Cyclopedia were paid by space, and the articles were generally checked only for form.

The Cyclopedia can still be found in many libraries throughout America. It was republished in 1968 by the Gale Research Company. However, Gale did not remove any of the bogus biographies, nor did it print a warning stating that hundreds of the sketches were known to be fictitious.

[RD2191]

The Taughannock Giant
The Taughannock Giant was a stone giant unearthed on July 4, 1879 on the shores of Lake Cayuga in Ithaca. It was pronounced to be of ancient origin by scientists and physicians. However, it turned out to be the work of Ira Dean who had spent months carving it in his home, with the simple desire of fooling someone.

[RD2191]

The Global Warming Hoax of 1874
A scientist discovers that mankind's technology is causing the world to warm. Although the effect is currently subtle, it will rapidly grow more pronounced. Research indicates that Europe will soon become a tropical zone. A few years later the entire world will be a sweltering inferno, unfit for life. The scientist tries to alert the world's governments, but the politicians ignore him. Desperate, he resorts to industrial sabotage, but his efforts prove futile. Finally, he succumbs to hopelessness, and he dies of fright, agonizing over the fate of the human race.

This tale of global warming and a scientist's unsuccessful effort to stop it might sound like something out of today's headlines, but it isn't. The story appeared in newspapers over one hundred years ago, in 1874. It was presented to readers as a factual account of events, but in reality it was almost entirely fiction. It was a nineteenth-century global-warming hoax.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/globalwarming01.jpg

The Transatlantic Telegraph Cable and the End of the World
The tale first surfaced in early February 1874, when the Kansas City Times printed the text of a letter it claimed to have received from one J.B. Legendre, who said that the letter had been sent to him, in turn, by an unnamed "American man of science" living in Florence, Italy. The correspondent detailed a discovery "of great and even agonizing importance to the human race" that he had learned of from other scientists in Italy.

The discovery was attributed to the Italian astronomer Giovanni Donati, who for many years, it was said, had been making daily measurements of the distance from the earth to the sun by means of an invention of his own design. In the course of making these measurements, Donati noticed that when the first transatlantic telegraph cable was laid, in 1858, the earth began to move closer to the sun. Initially the shift in orbit was quite gradual, but it quickly grew larger. And when another cable was subsequently laid connecting France to Massachusetts, the movement of the earth toward the sun accelerated rapidly.

Donati realized, to his terror, that the cables were acting like enormous electromagnets, pulling the earth into the sun. He calculated that if the earth's current trajectory continued unchecked, Europe would become tropical in 12 years, and the entire earth would be uninhabitable soon after. Finally the planet would plunge into the sun.


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/globalwarming02.jpg
Image from nasa.gov (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/corot2a_photo.html)

Donati warned the governments of the world, but the politicians were preoccupied with plans for war and paid him no heed. So he convinced several of his colleagues to join him in chartering a boat and breaking one of the cables. But the break was soon repaired, and the earth's descent into the sun continued.

Seeing there was no hope, and that the world was doomed, Donati's health gave way. He died of despair in December 1873.

What Was True

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/globalwarming03.jpg
Giovanni Donati
This fanciful tale of imminent global apocalypse contained a few fragments of truth. There really was an Italian astronomer named Giovanni Donati. He was a pioneer of the spectroscopic study of stars, comets, and the sun. He discovered a number of comets, one of which is named after him.

It was also true that Donati had died in December 1873, but his death was a result of cholera, not despair.

Finally, the transatlantic telegraph cables were quite real and well-known.

The rest of the story, however, was pure fiction.

Reception
The gloomy prediction and warning about the unforeseen danger of mankind's technology immediately attracted attention. Within weeks, the entire text of the letter had been reprinted by papers throughout the United States, appearing under the headline, "A Scientific Sensation."

However, although many papers reprinted the letter, there's no evidence any of them took it seriously. In fact, given the magnitude of the threat detailed, the attitude of papers toward it was strangely casual. Instead of giving it top-of-the-page billing, they typically placed it further down the page, sandwiching it between items about congressional proceedings and the price of silver. When the New York Daily Tribune reported about the story on the 24th of February, it dismissed the idea as "absurd."

By April, interest in the end-of-the-world prediction had begun to fade. Some papers continued to report the rumor that the great astronomer Donati had died "from excitement consequent upon discovering that the earth is approaching the sun so rapidly that in ten years it will be drawn into the sun and shriveled up." But they accompanied this disclosure with the joking remark that, "This will be discouraging news to the insurance companies."


http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/globalwarming05.jpg
Columbia Daily Phoenix, April 19, 1874

By May, the report of mankind's immiment fiery demise had been entirely forgotten.

It's not surprising the letter didn't generate more excitement because hoaxes appeared in late-nineteenth-century American newspapers all the time. Newspaper editors and readers were used to them. And this particular hoax evidently didn't even seem very convincing to anyone, probably because it was so far-fetched.

Science-themed hoaxes were a particular favorite of bored reporters. They regularly tried to hoodwink readers with stories about man-eating plants (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/man_eating_tree_of_madagascar), lunar penal colonies, and mastodons found alive in Siberia. The New York Tribune, in the same paragraph where it declared the global-warming tale to be absurd, complained about how many science hoaxes were appearing in papers:

So many elaborate hoaxes, originating in this country, have imposed upon men of science at home and abroad, that America has gained in some quarters an unenviable reputation. It would be tedious to enumerate these impositions — from Locke's Moon Hoax (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_great_moon_hoax) down to the Cardiff Giant (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_cardiff_giant) — for scarcely a week passes that a new one is not started, getting more or less of a newspaper run according to its ingenuity... Prof. Agassiz, speaking about this class of hoaxes, while expressing indignation at their authors, made the remark that, 'after all, if a scientific student is humbugged by them, he must be himself to blame.'

All these science hoaxes were the predecessors of today's science fiction. In the early twentieth century, pulp magazines came into existence that provided a home for science fiction stories and helped to establish the genre on firm footing. But during the 1870s and 80s, there was no obvious place for writers to publish such stories except for in newspapers, and they often published them there as fact — that is, as hoaxes. Edgar Allan Poe, who's widely credited with being an early pioneer of science fiction, published many of his stories as hoaxes (http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/edgar_allan_poe).

The 1874 global-warming tale was a minor media hoax. Nevertheless, the tale appears to be one of the earliest (if not the earliest) fictional depiction of global warming triggered by mankind's technology — although it identified undersea cables rather than carbon emissions as the cause of the warming. It was in 1896 that a scientist, Svante Arrhenius, first suggested that human-produced carbon emissions might cause the surface temperature of the earth to rise.

The Text of the 1874 Global Warming Hoax

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/globalwarming04.jpg
A SCIENTIFIC SENSATION

To the Editor of the Kansas City Times:
A friend of mine residing in Florence, an American man of science traveling for the sake of his health, lately wrote to me as follows:

"I have attended the meetings of one of the numerous scientific coteries with which Italy is blessed. In one of them a subject was broached which if generally known would startle the whole civilized world. One of the members, a man whose name is known in both hemispheres, asserted that the celebrated Donati (who lately died, much regretted by scientific men) had been a victim, not to disease or to time, although he was in a "green old age," but to nervous excitement or fright, caused by a discovery which he had made of great and even agonizing importance to the human race.

Donati had for many years been employing his unbounded energy in exploring some of the "hidden things in astronomy." of these investigations he kept a strict record of solar phenomena especially. He constructed an instrument by which he could calculate the earth's exact place in the great ellipse that it travels around the sun, and also, in his own estimation, its distance from the sun, although in this latter point he was not universally credited by his scientific colleagues. He never failed to make minute daily records of the result of his observation, and to this custom he owed his fresh discovery. On the very day that the cable was laid, his instruments showed him that the earth, like some vast ship towed by invisible hands, was drawing nearer to the sun. Every month after that epoch its distance was perceptibly lessened, as shown by his instruments, much more delicate than telescopes or the human eye.

When the French cable was laid there was an acceleration very marked in this attraction to the sun. Donati thought that this movement was increasing in a geometrical ratio.

He explained this alarming fact by certain reasonings based on the connection between gravitation and magnetism, which I suspect my friend was hardly able to follow.

His conclusion was this: That in twelve years the climate of Europe would become tropical, if not unfit for human existence, and that in a few more years this globe, which, with all its faults we love so well, would be precipitated into the sun.

It seems that Donati had in vain tried to bring this matter before the Italian government — hoping through it to reach the nations most interested in oceanic telegraphs — but the war politics had prevented any notice being taken of his representations.

He thought that if America and England could be induced to examine his data and proofs they, seeing the tremendous consequences of man's tampering too far with the machinery of nature, would speedily cause these cable to be things of the past.

His failure induced him to think of private enterprise, and several wealthy Italians, amateurs of science, combined together, chartered a brig and expensive machinery, and by their patriotic (although patriotism is too petty a name) efforts produced the first break in Field's cable, laid by the Great Eastern. Donati's instruments quickly showed that the earth was nearing its normal ellipse. But the break was quickly repaired, and once more the earth commenced its infinite spiral journal to the flames.

Donati's health gave way. Age and disappointment hastened his dissolution. A few days before his death he carefully sealed up all his manuscripts, with directions that they should not be opened for five years."

So much for my correspondent, Mr. Editor. Make of him such use as seems best to you. I am yours respectfully,
J.B. Legendre


[Note: The Museum of Hoaxes periodically receives emails suggesting that we should add modern-day global warming to the site because it's apparently the "biggest hoax in human history." We don't believe this to be the case, but we're hopeful that this confirmed (nineteenth-century) global-warming hoax might satisfy these correspondents.]

[RD2191]

The Calaveras Skull, 1866

http://hoaxdata.s3.amazonaws.com/1866calav.jpg
Front view of the Calaveras Skull
On February 25, 1866, workers found a human skull buried deep inside a mine on Bald Mountain in Calaveras County, California. The skull was located 130 feet below the surface, beneath a layer of lava. The owner of the mine, James Mattison, gave the skull to a merchant who in turn passed it on to a local physician until it eventually found its way into the possession of J.D. Whitney, the State Geologist of California and Professor of Geology at Harvard University. Whitney determined that the skull belonged to a Pliocene age man. This made it the oldest known record of human existence in North America. It also suggested that humans had lived in the Americas far longer than previously thought, perhaps as long as they had lived in Europe.

However, the authenticity of the skull was challenged by other scholars. What ensued was a long controversy between those who insisted the skull had been planted at the mine, and those who insisted it was a genuine find.

It took many years before the skull was decisively determined to be a fake. The skull was simply too modern in character to be from the Pliocene age. In addition, the sediment attached to it was not from the mine deposit, indicating it had been planted. The skull was probably planted by miners playing a practical joke.

Doubts
As early as 1869, a San Francisco newspaper declared, "We believe the whole story worthy of no scientific credence... a minister... told us that the miners freely told him that they purposely got up the whole affair as a joke on Professor Whitney."

Smithsonian scientist W.H. Holmes pointed out that the sediment found with the skull was of a modern type. The skull itself also looked modern. In addition, many scientists were disturbed by the fact that a qualified researcher had not had a chance to examine the skull in situ.

The Hoax Exposed
Despite the doubts expressed about the skull, Whitney continued to believe it was genuine. He was eventually replaced at Harvard by F.W. Putnam, who also argued for the skull's authenticity.

By the 1890s the skull was still accepted as genuine by the academic community, but it was becoming obvious that it did not fit into the growing fossil record of man's evolution. So in 1901 Putnam decided to determine, once and for all, whether the skull was authentic.

While in California he did some research and learned that in 1865 a number of Indian skulls had been dug up from a nearby Indian burial site. One of these skulls had been planted in the Bald Mountain mine so that workers would later find it. Despite hearing this story, Putnam was still not ready to declare the skull a fake. Instead he simply conceded that "It may be impossible ever to determine to the satisfaction of the archaeologist the place where the skull was actually found."

To confuse the matter, a careful comparison of the skull with descriptions of the skull at the time it had originally been found, led investigators to conclude that the two were not the same. In other words, at some point between the time that it had been dug up and the time that it had come into the possession of Whitney, the skull had been switched.

It now seems clear that neither the skull found in the mine, nor the skull acquired by Whitney, were genuine ancient skulls. The skulls were simply too modern in character to be from the Pliocene age, and in addition, the sediment attached to them was not from the mine deposit, indicating that they had been planted.

Historian Ralph Dexter concludes, "The desire on the part of miners to play a practical joke, the anxiety of archaeologists to prove the existence of early humankind in North America, the firm convictions and good faith of those involved in an honest mistake, and the confusion resulting from a mix-up of skulls, led to this long drawn-out controversy, unique in the annals of American archaeology."

[RD2191]

Those wacky scientist, always making shit up.

[RD2191]

So after RG loses he runs away. Never admitting he was wrong.

[RD2191]

And if you read the beginning of Exodus you will see that God "allowed" Pharaohs heart to become heartened. Why is this important? Because it goes back to free will. God could of intervened to make Pharaoh listen but as Pharaoh had free will he simply allowed it to happen. God knew before hand that Pharaoh would not listen so he had already told that to Moses and Aaron.

7 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007001) Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God* (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#fn8888609) to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888588/)2 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007002) You are to repeat everything that I will command you, and Aaron your brother will speak to Phar′aoh, and he will send the Israelites away from his land.3 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007003) As for me, I will allow Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate,+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888664/) and I will multiply my signs and my miracles in the land of Egypt.+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888696/)4 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007004) But Phar′aoh will not listen to you, and I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my multitudes,* (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#fn8888759) my people, the Israelites, out of the land of Egypt with great judgments.

tldr, Pharaoh responsible for death of his children/children of Egypt not God.

[RD2191]

Exodus 4:21 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/4/#v2004021)

21 Then Jehovah said to Moses: “After you have returned to Egypt, see that you perform before Phar′aoh all the miracles that I have empowered you to do.But I will allow his heart to become obstinate, and he will not send the people away.
Exodus 7:13 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007013)

13 Still, Phar′aoh’s heart became obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.




Exodus 7:22 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007022)

22 Nevertheless, the magic-practicing priests of Egypt did the same thing with their secret arts, so that Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 8:15 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008015)

15 When Phar′aoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and he refused to listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.


Exodus 8:19 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008019)

19 So the magic-practicing priests said to Phar′aoh: “It is the finger of God!” But Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 9:12 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009012)

12 But Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had told Moses.



Exodus 9:35 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009035)

35 And Phar′aoh’s heart continued obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away, just as Jehovah had stated through Moses.
Exodus 10:20 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010020)

20 However, Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away.
Exodus 10:27 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010027)

27 So Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not consent to send them away.
Exodus 11:10 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/11/#v2011010)

10 Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles before Phar′aoh, but Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, so that he did not send the Israelites away from his land.


Exodus 14:8 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/14/#v2014008)

8 Thus Jehovah allowed the heart of Phar′aoh king of Egypt to become obstinate, and he chased after the Israelites, while the Israelites were going out with confidence.
Romans 9:17, 18 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/9/#v45009017-v45009018)

17 For the scripture says to Phar′aoh: “For this very reason I have let you remain: to show my power in connection with you and to have my name declared in all the earth.” 18 So, then, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, but he lets whomever he wishes become obstinate.

[silverblk mystix]

I don't need to argue anything. I make no claims about "God", other than to say I see no evidence for such a thing.

I will point out flaws in others reasoning though. That is fun.


If you are pointing out "flaws" in others reasoning - yet - no one can define what "god" is -


Then you are probably lower on the stupidity level than anyone - because you cannot possibly know they are flaws - nor can anyone else - yet you condescendingly assume you are correct and they are not. Pretty flawed reasoning.

It has been fun pointing out how wrong and stupid your reasoning is.

[ChumpDumper]

It absolutely matters who does it first -

you don't see me disrespecting Xmas or Rob do you?


Because they are respectable posters.

You are a little pussy troll in hiding who will never dare show up to a gtg because you know you would get your pussy ass smoked if you disrespected ANYONE there.

Pussy.How many ST GTGs have you attended, SBM?

10?

20?

[Blake]

Rob going ham with spam

[RD2191]

Rob going ham with spam
You mean like RGs meltdown after he was proven wrong using only the Bible?

[ChumpDumper]

You mean like RGs meltdown after he was proven wrong using only the Bible?All that spam is in the bible?

[RD2191]

If you are pointing out "flaws" in others reasoning - yet - no one can define what "god" is -


Then you are probably lower on the stupidity level than anyone - because you cannot possibly know they are flaws - nor can anyone else - yet you condescendingly assume you are correct and they are not. Pretty flawed reasoning.

It has been fun pointing out how wrong and stupid your reasoning is.
According to RG the God he doesn't believe is an evil murderer.

[RD2191]

All that spam is in the bible?
Posted above only using the Bible. I only started spamming after RG started spamming articles and text that had nothing to do with the discussion. The beliefs/faults/false predictions by the JWs have nothing to do whether parents are responsible for their children or not. I only used the Bible to defend my stance.

[Blake]

If you are pointing out "flaws" in others reasoning - yet - no one can define what "god" is -


Then you are probably lower on the stupidity level than anyone - because you cannot possibly know they are flaws - nor can anyone else - yet you condescendingly assume you are correct and they are not. Pretty flawed reasoning.

It has been fun pointing out how wrong and stupid your reasoning is.

Moron,

We're referencing Bible God where God is defined.

[Blake]

You mean like RGs meltdown after he was proven wrong using only the Bible?

You claiming victory doesn't mean anything to me

[Blake]

Posted above only using the Bible. I only started spamming after RG started spamming articles and text that had nothing to do with the discussion. The beliefs/faults/false predictions by the JWs have nothing to do whether parents are responsible for their children or not. I only used the Bible to defend my stance.

The ol fight spam with spam using only the Bible spam method.

[Blake]

tldr, Pharaoh responsible for death of his children/children of Egypt not God.

God responsible for directly killing his own children via flood

[xmas1997]

According to RG the God he doesn't believe is an evil murderer.

I still do not get how you can claim something you do not believe exists can be anything.
That seems rather ambiguous to me.

[RD2191]

God responsible for directly killing his own children via flood
Also not true as has been explained to you many times. All who were old enough to choose for themselves were responsible for their own life. Those who were not, as in children, had their choice made by their parents. Their parents refused to listen so they were responsible for the death of their children.

[RD2191]

http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/science

[ChumpDumper]

Should someone counterspam with links to religious hoaxes?

[Blake]

Also not true as has been explained to you many times. All who were old enough to choose for themselves were responsible for their own life. Those who were not, as in children, had their choice made by their parents. Their parents refused to listen so they were responsible for the death of their children.

God is supposed to be our father.

By your logic, that still makes him responsible for their deaths.

No logical way around it. The only thing left for you to do is make assumptions.

[RD2191]

Should someone counterspam with links to religious hoaxes?
What for? RG started spamming for no reason once he realized he was loosing in the discussion/debate.

[RD2191]

God is supposed to be our father.

By your logic, that still makes him responsible for their deaths.

No logical way around it. The only thing left for you to do is make assumptions.
Father that gives people the choice to follow his laws or not. If they choose to be evil then that is their choice and they will have to answer to him for their choices. A child can not choose so the choice is made by their parents who are responsible for their well being.

[ChumpDumper]

What for? RG started spamming for no reason once he realized he was loosing in the discussion/debate.Well you're just spamming about scientific hoaxes.

Are there religious hoaxes?

[z0sa]

Look up facts for evolution on youtube. Theres many many many facts that can ONLY be explained by evolution. For example, I honestly dont care to even debate this shit anymore, simply because there is no debate at all. Evolution is unquestionably real and accurate. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant, foolish, has an agenda, or simply in denial. Perhaps a combination of them.

[SnakeBoy]

Meh. I am happy to admit I get something wrong, and never purposefully make things up.

When corrected I always acknowledge it.

If you want to claim I lie, then you will have to show exactly how.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

My prediction:

You won't, since you are a lazy shit. Prove I'm lying about that.

lol it wouldn't matter if I was a lazy shit or not because it's there for all to see. You still haven't admitted you were wrong so you're lying once again.

[Blake]

Father that gives people the choice to follow his laws or not. If they choose to be evil then that is their choice and they will have to answer to him for their choices. A child can not choose so the choice is made by their parents who are responsible for their well being.

So you're ok with a father killing his kids.

disgusting.

[xmas1997]

Well you're just spamming about scientific hoaxes.

Are there religious hoaxes?

And you are humiliated by your Christian dogma blunder haunting you forever, I can tell, we all can.
I can humiliate you all over again by re-posting it at my leisure.
:lmao

[ohmwrecker]

What a fucking putz you are.

[xmas1997]

What a fucking putz you are.

Don't even get me started on how dumb and ignorant you are.
You wouldn't like it.
You are laughably so.
:lmao

[ohmwrecker]

Don't even get me started on how dumb and ignorant you are.
You wouldn't like it.
You are laughably so.
:lmao

Why would I care what a mentally imbalanced, hypocrite thinks?

[xmas1997]

Why would I care what a mentally imbalanced, hypocrite thinks?

You just described yourself to a T.
All I havre to do now is laugh at you.
:lol

[ohmwrecker]

You just described yourself to a T.
All I havre to do now is laugh at you.
:lol

Ah . . . the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic . . . classic lame troll M.O.

[Agloco]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m9tvSndwVGI/TY99zZ5H6bI/AAAAAAAACPo/Y6gtTXJAio4/s1600/Tom+Rust+Evolution+Mario+Bros.jpg

[xmas1997]

Ah . . . the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic . . . classic lame troll M.O.

You too?
That is the kinky shit that blake and chump like to do when they do their gay shit.
I had no idea you were involved with them.
And all this time I thought it was DMC.
This is too funny for words!
:lmao

[ohmwrecker]

You're a loon.

[Blake]

You too?
That is the kinky shit that blake and chump like to do when they do their gay shit.
I had no idea you were involved with them.
And all this time I thought it was DMC.
This is too funny for words!
:lmao

More lies.

[xmas1997]

You're a loon.

So says the troll.
You really don't expect me to believe that.
Keep your rubber/glue kinky sick shit between you three, I'm not interested, sorry.
:lol

[xmas1997]

More lies.

#9 right on cue, you're my puppet. #10?

[ohmwrecker]

So says the troll.
You really don't expect me to believe that.
Keep your rubber/glue kinky sick shit between you three, I'm not interested, sorry.
:lol

No, I don't expect a loon to believe he's a loon.

[xmas1997]

No, I don't expect a loon to believe he's a loon.

And trolls do nothing but lie, so it must mean that I am not.
Thanks for validating it.
:lol

[ohmwrecker]

And trolls do nothing but lie, so it must mean that I am not.
Thanks for validating it.
:lol

I'm not a troll. I'm the only one telling you the truth. You're letting these people drive you crazy. You have gone off the deep end.

[xmas1997]

I'm not a troll. I'm the only one telling you the truth. You're letting these people drive you crazy. You have gone off the deep end.

:lmao That is truly funny. You are way too delusional to talk to.
You probably believe your own bullshit.
They are merely getting back what they put out.
:lol

[ohmwrecker]

:lmao That is truly funny. You are way too delusional to talk to.
You probably believe your own bullshit.
:lol

Seriously, explain how what you are doing is different than chump/blake?

[Blake]

#9 right on cue, you're my puppet. #10?

nope. Another lie.

[Blake]

I'm not a troll. I'm the only one telling you the truth. You're letting these people drive you crazy. You have gone off the deep end.

I'm telling him the truth too. Just at a higher post rate.

[RD2191]

So you're ok with a father killing his kids.

disgusting.
A human father? No. God? Well God is the ultimate judge. So he was just in his actions. But ultimately they have been given the chance to repent if they choose. Still plenty of time. And if you're speaking of Noah's time then they chose death. They also had the choice to repent and serve God but they chose not to.

[Blake]

God is supposed to be our father.

By your logic, that still makes him responsible for their deaths.

No logical way around it. The only thing left for you to do is make assumptions.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm telling him the truth too. Just at a higher post rate.

yeah. I've noticed.

[Avante]

Thank God for Blake/Chump, I;m never at the bottom for long, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

[xmas1997]

:lmao
Thank God for Blake/Chump, I;m never at the bottom for long, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

And you are humiliated by your Christian dogma blunder haunting you forever, I can tell, we all can.
I can humiliate you all over again by re-posting it at my leisure.
:lmaoYour contest.

It doesn't change the dictionary. Try laughing maniacally at Mirriam-Webster/ Take your crusade there.

[Jeff Leppard]

If we evolved from apes, how come I don't care for bananas?

[Blake]

If we evolved from apes, how come I don't care for bananas?

2z-OLG0KyR4

[Avante]

Well I saw nothing here I haven't seen before. If you've ever delved into the theory of Evolution before there it was right up there.....again. I learned absolutely nothing I didn't already know.

The bottom line is real simple....

Without proof of the multitude of different stages of evolution it's weak. What did the 2 milion years ago duck, look like compared to the 10 million years ago duck?

[Blake]

^ lazy fat ass

[spurraider21]

You might as well also start a thread about quantum physics and why you think it's bullshit because you don't understand it

[Avante]

You might as well also start a thread about quantum physics and why you think it's bullshit because you don't understand it

Who doesn't understand it? Why keep acting like it's some really complex situation,when it's obviously not that at all?

If everything evolved from a lower life form where are all the stages involved to go from one stage of evolution to the other.....well?

[ChumpDumper]

Well I saw nothing here I haven't seen before. If you've ever delved into the theory of Evolution before there it was right up there.....again. I learned absolutely nothing I didn't already know.

The bottom line is real simple....

Without proof of the multitude of different stages of evolution it's weak. What did the 2 milion years ago duck, look like compared to the 10 million years ago duck?Considering the available evidence, ducks really haven't changed much in that time period.

You mean you didn't know that?

lol book owner

[ChumpDumper]

Who doesn't understand it? Why keep acting like it's some really complex situation,when it's obviously not that at all?

If everything evolved from a lower life form where are all the stages involved to go from one stage of evolution to the other.....well?Have you ever read a book about evolution, Avante?

[spurraider21]

Well over 90% of species that have existed are extinct. Every day species go extinct regardless of human intervention. The math alone suggests the emergence of new species. The fossil record, though fragmented, supports this, as well as the genetic record.

When you understand that fossilization requires very specific conditions, you will know that a mere fraction of a percent of deceased organisms will leave fossils behind. You can't realistically expect to find fossils from every generation or even species. There are likely species of dinosaurs for instance that existed and never left fossils behind.

[Avante]

Well over 90% of species that have existed are extinct. Every day species go extinct regardless of human intervention. The math alone suggests the emergence of new species. The fossil record, though fragmented, supports this, as well as the genetic record.

When you understand that fossilization requires very specific conditions, you will know that a mere fraction of a percent of deceased organisms will leave fossils behind. You can't realistically expect to find fossils from every generation or even species. There are likely species of dinosaurs for instance that existed and never left fossils behind.

http://www.ptm.org/99PT/MarApr/HHhankronyms.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah most of the dead animals of yore are burning up in our cars and holding our sodas.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.ptm.org/99PT/MarApr/HHhankronyms.htmlol Jesusdoucheblogger misquoted Darwin.

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Jesusdoucheblogger lied.

Avante lied by extension.

[Avante]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

[ChumpDumper]

[spambot protocol initiated -- discussion ceased]

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo

[ChumpDumper]

Avante, you obviously haven't read one thing about evolution ever and can't discuss the concepts thereof at all. Why start any threads about it when all you do is declare your ignorance about it?

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2M0XQnqfNY

[ChumpDumper]

Why should anyone watch anything you post if you never read anything that makes the case for evolution?

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

[ChumpDumper]

http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/im-not-listening-stephen-colbert-gif.gif

[spurraider21]

Avante you don't understand anything and haven't learned anythin since you refuse to educate yourself

[ChumpDumper]

Sharks also have barely changed for a very long period of time. They don't require adaptation. Natural selection at work. Sharks as built are successful and pass on those successfull traitsYeah, Avante just proved he never read one word about evolution.

:cry My almanacs! :cry

[Avante]

Avante you don't understand anything and haven't learned anythin since you refuse to educate yourself

You honestly haven't noticed I'm an avid reader? I read all about Evolution long ago and didn't buy it then and aint buying it now. Why not actually look at those videos I posted and educate yourself? How come so many are dedunking evolution?

Cool the..back in school I read where.....ok? Look at those videos, educate yourself.

[spurraider21]

You honestly haven't noticed I'm an avid reader? I read all about Evolution long ago and didn't buy it then and aint buying it now. Why not actually look at those videos I posted and educate yourself? How come so many are dedunking evolution?
If that's true you wouldn't be asking stupid questions which demonstrate your lack of understanding. Everytime I make a point you ignore it, deflect it, and post some arbitrary link that has nothing to do with my specific post

[ChumpDumper]

You honestly haven't noticed I'm an avid reader? I read all about Evolution long agoHow come you were totally ignorant about ducks then?

You just lied again, dude.

You're an avid listspammer. That's all.

[Avante]

If that's true you wouldn't be asking stupid questions which demonstrate your lack of understanding. Everytime I make a point you ignore it, deflect it, and post some arbitrary link that has nothing to do with my specific post

What is there to understand? Without a multitude of examples to prove the theory (and there isn't) it's all a load of bullshit. You keep ignoring the bottom line, there are no examples of lesser level anythings morping into a higher level anything. No proof that ever actually happened.

You disagree?

[Avante]

We can actually trace this back to the very beginnings and prove the roots.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMgrN-ghWH4

[spurraider21]

What is there to understand? Without a multitude of examples to prove the theory (and there isn't) it's all a load of bullshit. You keep ignoring the bottom line, there are no examples of lesser level anythings morping into a higher level anything. No proof that ever actually happened.

You disagree?
You're making the same mistakes over and over again which is just proving my point. Nothing ever "morphed." It's not as though an ape one day randomly gave birth to the first human. Also, what do you mean by "lesser" or "higher"

[ChumpDumper]

What is there to understand? Without a multitude of examples to prove the theory (and there isn't) it's all a load of bullshit. You keep ignoring the bottom line, there are no examples of lesser level anythings morping into a higher level anything. No proof that ever actually happened.

You disagree?Of course I disagree. You make two fundamentally stupid assumptions:

1) Everything that has ever lived has become an easily accessible fossil.

2) Every fossil ever made has been discovered.

You just showed your ignorance again.

BTW, why are you so skeptical and demanding of absolute proof of evolution while giving religion a complete free pass?

Hypocritical.

[Avante]

Officially Debunking Evolution (Without Mentioning God)
For years now, our strategy for disproving the Theory of Evolution has been "It wasn't in the Bible, so it didn't happen." And while I'm a Christian, I don't think that's the sort of thing that belongs in a scientific debate, so I'll try something new.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it) should know about meiosis. Since I'm not an expert, and you probably want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject: Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis). The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring recieves half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing. According to this page: Chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Number_of_chromosomes_in_various_organi sms), human beings have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent), whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

Anyone care to prove me wrong? http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/astudios/joking.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Officially Debunking Evolution (Without Mentioning God)
For years now, our strategy for disproving the Theory of Evolution has been "It wasn't in the Bible, so it didn't happen." And while I'm a Christian, I don't think that's the sort of thing that belongs in a scientific debate, so I'll try something new.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it) should know about meiosis. Since I'm not an expert, and you probably want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject: Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis). The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring recieves half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing. According to this page: Chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Number_of_chromosomes_in_various_organi sms), human beings have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent), whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

Anyone care to prove me wrong? http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/astudios/joking.gif Mutation.

[Avante]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Avante, your spam was proved wrong with one word.

What do you have to say about that?

[leemajors]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

[ChumpDumper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_TepeBut did they find any ducks there?

[Avante]

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/Wow. That was chock full o' logical fallacies.

[ChumpDumper]

Please, keep spamming though. You're coming off as pretty desperate.

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpLnlBEJiRY

[ChumpDumper]

lol googlespam

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZTfQh9aZd0

[ChumpDumper]

I bet you haven't read or watched any of the things you are linking.

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, you didn't watch that one either.

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yNju1_-CMk

[Avante]

As we can see there is no end to all the examples of how evolution is flawed and inaccurate, what I showed above is a tiny fraction of all those examples. Only a total fool ignores reality.

I intentionally saved the above one for last. Now who out there didn't get it?

Something as complex as DNA just happened by chance, come on people are you really that stupid?

Avante...DNA came about because of a Master Designer
you......(go ahead explain how DNA just came about by chance)

Prove this wrong/bogus, if you can't then shut the fuck up about evolution.


http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-8a.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Avante...DNA came about because of a Master DesignerProve it.

[Avante]

Now watch as nobody does shit but talk shit. Who can disprove DNA, yep..nobody! So can we have DNA and evolution? Knowing DNA simply couldn't happen by chance, yep...impossible!

[ChumpDumper]

Now watch as nobody does shit but talk shit. Who can disprove DNA, yep..nobody! So can we have DNA and evolution? Knowing DNA simply couldn't happen by chance, yep...impossible!Where's your proof?

[Avante]

Francis Crick James Watson

In the nucleus of every cell in your body, there is a DNA molecule, containing all the information about your body. The color of your hair and your eyes, information about your internal organs, your external appearance, your height, and all your other characteristics are all encoded in your DNA. To understand how much information is contained in DNA, consider this comparison: If you wrote down the information in one DNA molecule, it would fill a library of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. To house these encyclopedias, you would need a library as long as a football field. This much information, invisible to us, is contained in one single molecule.

DNA proves that cells could not have come into being by chance. This is one of the countless clear proofs of God's existence.

We have mentioned just a few of the developments that occurred in the last century. Every branch of science separately affirms the invalidity of evolution. Despite this, evolutionists continue to cling to Darwin's "explanations." They even add new fabrications to the old ones. But these will still not make Darwin's famous barrel experiment work, because evolutionists still do not think scientifically. They do not accept the fact that the Almighty God created all living things.

[spurraider21]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
crofl. link says "jesus-is-savior.com"

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/
absolutely none of those 10 "flaws" are factual statements. not a single on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpLnlBEJiRY
this just gives names of people. how is this evidence of anything for either side?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZTfQh9aZd0
wow this is a link where one scientist from the 1800's disagreed with the theory of natural selection. so impressive. the program is called "creation moments" and at the top of their page it quotes genesis 1:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM
so according to this link, he said there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution, and therefore the answer must be creation, which has EVEN less evidence for it. excellent logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yNju1_-CMk
i'm glad this guy peppers in bible verses during his breakdown. weird avante, for somebody such as yourself who claims christianity and the bible is fraud, you seem to be posting a lot of christian links. plus this guy is horrendously wrong in his analysis :lol

the guy in this video has zero scientific education, attended an non-accredited school, Midwestern Baptist College, and received a degree in religious educatoin.

here is a link that goes through everything he says and explains how much like yourself, avante, he has serious flaws in basic understanding on the topic. http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.htm

here is a gem:

HOVIND .... I suspect you are aware that humans have 46 chromosomes and tobacco has 48. And amoebas have 50. And yet the evolution textbooks constantly say we came from an amoeba-like creature and yet they have already got more chromosomes than we do. They're ahead of us, not behind us.

MOORE Actually, I don't even know what species has most chromosomes but it's certainly not related to phylogenetic progression. I know of no evolutionary biologist that makes that claim.

As we can see there is no end to all the examples of how evolution is flawed and inaccurate, what I showed above is a tiny fraction of all those examples. Only a total fool ignores reality.

I intentionally saved the above one for last. Now who out there didn't get it?

Something as complex as DNA just happened by chance, come on people are you really that stupid?

Avante...DNA came about because of a Master Designer
you......(go ahead explain how DNA just came about by chance)
lol, you understand nothing about this. you have virtually no scientific education, as evidenced by your hilarious posting habits here

[ChumpDumper]

Francis Crick James Watson

In the nucleus of every cell in your body, there is a DNA molecule, containing all the information about your body. The color of your hair and your eyes, information about your internal organs, your external appearance, your height, and all your other characteristics are all encoded in your DNA. To understand how much information is contained in DNA, consider this comparison: If you wrote down the information in one DNA molecule, it would fill a library of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. To house these encyclopedias, you would need a library as long as a football field. This much information, invisible to us, is contained in one single molecule.A lot of information can be accrued in four billion years. That quote actually helps the old earth theory.

[Avante]

processes through mutation and natural selection.Amazing revelations about DNAAs scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).

[spurraider21]

as you see avante, i'm actually going through the garbage you are posting and responding to them. instead of responding, you keep spamming more links that you yourself haven't even read or watched.

[Avante]

crofl. link says "jesus-is-savior.com"

absolutely none of those 10 "flaws" are factual statements. not a single on

this just gives names of people. how is this evidence of anything for either side?

wow this is a link where one scientist from the 1800's disagreed with the theory of natural selection. so impressive. the program is called "creation moments" and at the top of their page it quotes genesis 1:1

so according to this link, he said there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution, and therefore the answer must be creation, which has EVEN less evidence for it. excellent logic

i'm glad this guy peppers in bible verses during his breakdown. weird avante, for somebody such as yourself who claims christianity and the bible is fraud, you seem to be posting a lot of christian links. plus this guy is horrendously wrong in his analysis :lol

the guy in this video has zero scientific education, attended an non-accredited school, Midwestern Baptist College, and received a degree in religious educatoin.

here is a link that goes through everything he says and explains how much like yourself, avante, he has serious flaws in basic understanding on the topic. http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.htm

here is a gem:

HOVIND .... I suspect you are aware that humans have 46 chromosomes and tobacco has 48. And amoebas have 50. And yet the evolution textbooks constantly say we came from an amoeba-like creature and yet they have already got more chromosomes than we do. They're ahead of us, not behind us.

MOORE Actually, I don't even know what species has most chromosomes but it's certainly not related to phylogenetic progression. I know of no evolutionary biologist that makes that claim.

lol, you understand nothing about this. you have virtually no scientific education, as evidenced by your hilarious posting habits here

So you are telling me that you can explain how DNA came about....right? Ok go ahead.

Trust me guy all those guys are far more educated that you are, ok?

[ChumpDumper]

processes through mutation and natural selection.Amazing revelations about DNAAs scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).Arguments from incredulity?

How scientific.

:cry My brain too small to comprehend complexity. Threrefore, Magic Jesus! :worthy: :king

[ChumpDumper]

So you are telling me that you can explain how DNA came about....right? Ok go ahead.

Trust me guy all those guys are far more educated that you are, ok?How do you measure their education, Avante?

Be specific. Make sure you shit on your own education in the process.

[Avante]

as you see avante, i'm actually going through the garbage you are posting and responding to them. instead of responding, you keep spamming more links that you yourself haven't even read or watched.

I've read all and watched all of them, do you really think this is the first time I've had this discussion? How did I know where they all were so quickly?

So you really think something as complex as DNA just came about by chance....right?

[ChumpDumper]

I've read all and watched all of them, do you realy think is the first time I've had this discussion? How did I know where they all were so quickly?You Googled "how to spam a message board with Magic Jesus links against evolution."

[spurraider21]

So you are telling me that you can explain how DNA came about....right? Ok go ahead.

Trust me guy all those guys are far more educated that you are, ok?
actually not really. i'll take my degree in biochemistry over his non-accredited degree in religious education any day of the week

[spurraider21]

I've read all and watched all of them, do you really think this is the first time I've had this discussion? How did I know where they all were so quickly?

So you really think something as complex as DNA just came about by chance....right?
you are either google or youtube searching "proof against atheism" and copy-pasting the links here. it's pretty transparent

[Blake]

So you are telling me that you can explain how DNA came about....right? Ok go ahead.

Trust me guy all those guys are far more educated that you are, ok?

Hovind is a proven idiot.

[Blake]

You Googled "how to spam a message board with Magic Jesus links against evolution."

Lol

I'd bump this for Avante to see but he's got me on ignore too

[Avante]

you are either google or youtube searching "proof against atheism" and copy-pasting the links here. it's pretty transparent

Then there's always reality and facts. I 've had this same discussion many times I just used some sites I've used before.

So explain how we got DNA?

[ChumpDumper]

Then there's always reality and facts. I 've had this same discussion many times I just used some sites I've used before.

So explain how we got DNA?You have never discussed anything.

Basically all you do is list a bunch of spam to rationalize your life choices, then:

http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/im-not-listening-stephen-colbert-gif.gif

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5bPbwkjKMM

[ChumpDumper]

http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/im-not-listening-stephen-colbert-gif.gif

[spurraider21]

Then there's always real;ity and facts. I 've had this same discussion many times I just used some sites I've used before.

So explain how we got DNA?
i'm not going to pretend to be a genetics expert, although some of the basics are known. we already know that simple RNA could be synthesized with the chemicals that were accessible on early earth. now which order/pairings would form spontaneously? random ones, for certain. but once a random sequence that coded for assembly/reproduction occurred, that sequence was the first "success" and is essentially the first champion of natural selection.

you can look into it, instead of asking me.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795.500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself.html#.U_ksKrxdVks

[ChumpDumper]

Trust me guy all those guys are far more educated that you are, ok?Hovind is currently in a federal penitentiary.

lol

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeCxKzYiIA

[ChumpDumper]

Ladies and gentleman, Kent Hovid's alma mater: Patriot Bible University!

http://www.durangobill.com/JGpics/PatriotUniv2.jpg

[Avante]

I held off on this DNA trip until I had the dumb fucks here out in the middle of the lake, now I'm going to drown them, hahahaaha!!!!!!!

Only a grade A idiot would dare and try...."DNA just came about by chance". Not one of you here can give me any real explanation as to how something this complex is happening by chance and you know it.

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeCxKzYiIA
this video tells us nothing except "dna is complex"

big whoop.

Avante are you a believer in the bible? you are posting many biblical sources, such as youtube videos from a link called "kingjamesbible"

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure there's a DNA lab in there somewhere!

http://www.durangobill.com/JGpics/PatriotUniv2.jpg

[spurraider21]

I held off on this DNA trip until I had the dumb fucks here out in the middle of the lake, now I'm going to drown them
the only thing i'd be drowning in is the sheer number of links you are spamming into this thread

[Avante]

this video tells us nothing except "dna is complex"

big whoop.

Avante are you a believer in the bible? you are posting many biblical sources, such as youtube videos from a link called "kingjamesbible"

Do you want me to send you to a ton of videos/sites with strict scientists talking about DNA?

My beliefs are that there was some Master Designer, since I like you and everyone else has no clue what that might be I'm stuck with what's available. I have no problem going with God, just don't try and sell the Bible stories to me.

Bottom line is only a fool would think DNA and all this just came about by chance, that is ridiculous.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you want me to send you to a ton of videos/sites with strict scientists talking about DNA?

My beliefs are that there was some Master Desiger, since I like you and everyone else has no clue what that might be I'm stuck with what's available. I have no problem going with God, just don't tru and sell the Bible stories to me.

Bottom line is only a fool would hink DNA and all this just came about by chance, that is ridiculous.So you don't need ANY proof to back up your claim, but anyone thinking differently needs to provide complete and unassailable proof?

lol that's debate Patriot Bible University style!

[spurraider21]

Do you want me to send you to a ton of videos/sites with strict scientists talking about DNA?

My beliefs are that there was some Master Designer, since I like you and everyone else has no clue what that might be I'm stuck with what's available. I have no problem going with God, just don't try and sell the Bible stories to me.

Bottom line is only a fool would think DNA and all this just came about by chance, that is ridiculous.
you have the same flaw as that one guy in one of the 30 links you posted...

"i dont think there is enough evidence so support theory A, therefore the correct answer must the theory B, even though that one actually has even less evidence than theory A"

[Clipper Nation]

Old Faggot spamming, circlejerking and deflecting all questions per par....

[Avante]

you have the same flaw as that one guy in one of the 30 links you posted...

"i dont think there is enough evidence so support theory A, therefore the correct answer must the theory B, even though that one actually has even less evidence than theory A"

So you honestly believe something as totally complex as DNA just happened? Dude, are you serious? The distance the earth is from the sun, the seasons, the rotationof the earth al just came about by chance......you really believe that?

Wow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Clipper Nation]

Ladies and gentleman, Kent Hovid's alma mater: Patriot Bible University!

http://www.durangobill.com/JGpics/PatriotUniv2.jpg
:lmao

[Avante]

Old Faggot spamming, circlejerking and deflecting all questions per par....

Bullshit! Why not get it right for once ya dumb fuck.

[Avante]

Does anyone here have a clue what DNA is? How could anything this complex not have a design?

[spurraider21]

Does anyone here have a clue what DNA is? How could anything this complex not have a design?
the funny thing is unless you googled it right now, you wouldn't even be able to name the 4 nucleotide bases found in DNA, even just the letter abbreviations

your entire understanding of DNA is just "its very complex"

[Avante]

Friday, August 12, 2011

DNA is far too complex to have just randomly happened - overcoming Darwinist ignorance



It is unwise to always publish long posts for there are many folks who cannot digest so much so fast. So you get a nice, short one today. Most of the technical journals I get do not release the majority of their articles for at least three years, so this article is pretty new to the internet but is actually not "new" per se, just well-written and to the point.
Astonishing DNA complexity update (http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update)

by Alex Williams (http://www.blogger.com/article/3492)



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWPqVDUKLFE/TkXIifkPVoI/AAAAAAAABpE/FuA1Rm5hpu0/s640/5174abstract.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWPqVDUKLFE/TkXIifkPVoI/AAAAAAAABpE/FuA1Rm5hpu0/s1600/5174abstract.jpg)



Image istockphoto.com



Recently we reported astonishing new discoveries about the complexity of the information content stored in the DNA molecule.1 (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=21317674#endRef1) Notably, the 97% of the human DNA that does not code for protein is not leftover ‘junk DNA’ from our evolutionary past, as previously thought, but is virtually all being actively used right now in our cells.

Here are a few more exciting details from the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) pilot project report.2 (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=21317674#endRef2) As a help in understanding this, DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information. In contrast, RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells. To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA transcripts that then do the work as instructed by that information.


Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.
We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are huge compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to more than 100 times the size of the gene region. This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes
The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.
Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again. Recent other work3 (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=21317674#endRef3) shows that this is physically accomplished as follows:

The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.
The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.
The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.
The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.
The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.
The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.
The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.


The most surprising result, according to the ENCODE authors, is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate). This contradicts Charles Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution. It also creates an interesting paradox: cell architecture, machinery and metabolic cycles are all highly conserved (e.g. the human insulin gene has been put into bacteria to produce human insulin on an industrial scale), while most of the chromosomal information is freely mutating. How could this state of affairs be maintained for the supposed 3.8 billion years since bacteria first evolved? A better answer might be that life is only thousands, not billions of years old. It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life—the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long assumed.

[pgardn]

So you honestly believe something as totally complex as DNA just happened? Dude, are you serious? The distance the earth is from the sun, the seasons, the rotationof the earth al just came about by chance......you really believe that?

Wow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DNA is not very complex as bio molecules go.

Proteins, especially those with carbohydrate attached like on cell surfaces, are much more complex from a biochemists point of view.


Your whole argument is analogous to going out on a beach, picking up one grain of sand, and then exclaiming what a miracle it was that you just happened to pick up that grain of sand. It's ignorant and simplistic.

And you really have no idea what you posted above really means.
You and I both know this.

[Avante]

DNA is not very complex as bio molecules go.

Proteins, especially those with carbohydrate attached like on cell surfaces, are much more complex from a biochemists point of view.


Your whole argument is analogous to going out on a beach, picking up one grain of sand, and then exclaiming what a miracle it was that you just happened to pick up that grain of sand. It's ignorant and simplistic.

And you really have no idea what you posted above really means.
You and I both know this.

What we both actually know is that there is a reason we can't have DNA wiithout a designer. The complexity of it alone tells us that. So you disagree with what science is proving, not speculating....but proving.

Do you even understand DNA?

[Blake]

I have no problem going with God, just don't try and sell the Bible stories to me.

.

But Christmas and Easter?

Think of the kids!

[Avante]

How likely is it that DNA was created by nature?

In other words, what is the (mathematical) probability that given the timescale and world conditions at that time (approx 4 billion years ago) that nature could have come up with (or evolved) a structure like DNA.

Given that DNA is a complex molecule that has a very elegant system for holding digital information and a very reliable system to copy itself, with seemingly just the right amount of mutation to help evolution. Can we show that it might have happened within the timescales available or does in look like that it would be extremely unlikely?

Another thing that puzzles me is that DNA is a digital information system. When we look at many naturally occurring systems they tend to work in an analogue fashion. What are the probabilities of other types of systems occurring, such as for example, a potential differences caused by different concentrations of molecules used as a basis for information storage?

LUCA - understood to be all life's universal ancestor - a single cell about 3.5 billion years ago (I think). This does not leave a great deal of time to have evolved DNA from when the earth could have had the conditions to allow this. And, presumably DNA would have needed to have been around for quite some time before it managed to evolve LUCA.

Are there any (computer) models that identify these probability issues, what work has been done on this - anyone know? By the way this is a layman's question - I am not a geneticist!

Who can answer this?

[pgardn]

What we both actually know is that there is a reason we can't have DNA wiithout a designer. The complexity of it alone tells us that. So you disagree with what science is proving, not speculating....but proving.

Do you even understand DNA?

yes I do...

And I can point at all the flaws in what you posted above but you would not understand the explanations for one basic reason, you don't have a clue as to what you have posted.

Next.

[Avante]

yes I do...

And I can point at all the flaws in what you posted above but you would not understand the explanations for one basic reason, you don't have a clue as to what you have posted.

Next.

You wanna try me little fella?

[pgardn]

RNA is favored over DNA as being the ?first self replicating molecule, so the timing involved in the entire bull above is most likely flawed.

Why is RNA favored over DNA.?


Why does it make so much more sense, please point to the experiments that give credence to RNA and explain why RNA is favored.

You really should avoid the deep end of the pool when you can't swim.

[ChumpDumper]

You wanna try me little fella?Yes, of course we want to try you. We've been asking you to discuss anything in your own words for months, dummy.

We're still waiting.

[Avante]

RNA is favored over DNA as being the ?first self replicating molecule, so the timing involved in the entire bull above is most likely flawed.

Why is RNA favored over DNA.?


Why does it make so much more sense, please point to the experiments that give credence to RNA and explain why RNA is favored.

You really should avoid the deep end of the pool when you can't swim.

This isn't about RNA vs DNA....obviously. This is about could something with the complexities involved such as DNA have just come about without a master design? You ignore what is being talked about with a question?

Do you think DNA just happened by chance, that's what is being talked about here...ok?

[spurraider21]

This isn't about RNA vs DNA....obviously. This is about could something with the complexities involved such as DNA have just come about without a master design? You ignore what is being talked about with a question?

Do you think DNA just happened by chance, that's what is being talked about here...ok?
you misunderstood the scope of his entire post. misunderstanding science is becoming a common theme from your posts

[pgardn]

I don't go into the tech section and try to explain computer set ups because I don't know that much.
I don't challenge you on your track records and blues artists because I don't know that much.
I don't go spouting off about NBA contracts and all the minutiae that goes with team rules via the collective bargaining agreement.

But you have no problem throwing up shit on things you know very little about and feel totally comfortable. In the real world, where people get paid for having a clue, that's called fraud... Mate.

[Avante]

you misunderstood the scope of his entire post. misunderstanding science is becoming a common theme from your posts

Bullshit! You not really saying anything is becoming a constant in your posts.

[Avante]

I don't go into the tech section and try to explain computer set ups because I don't know that much.
I don't challenge you on your track records and blues artists because I don't know that much.
I don't go spouting off about NBA contracts and all the minutiae that goes with team rules via the collective bargaining agreement.

But you have no problem throwing up shit on things you know limitless about and feel totally comfortable. In the real world, where people get paid for having a clue, that's called fraud... Mate.

Whatever

So do you think DNA just came about by chance?

[pgardn]

This isn't about RNA vs DNA....obviously. This is about could something with the complexities involved such as DNA have just come about without a master design? You ignore what is being talked about with a question?

Do you think DNA just happened by chance, that's what is being talked about here...ok?

RNA a much simpler system is thought to have given rise to the DNA system that works in eukaryotic cells. The DNA information system employed in bacteria is much simpler. Bacteria were around about a billion years before euk. cells. And will likely be far into the future, when multi cellular euk are gone. A simple system coming before and lasting longer.

Do I need to continue or do you understand how wrong you are?

[The Reckoning]

Bolt just ran the first under 10 indoor 100m and avante is too worried about evolution to notice. so sad.

[Avante]

RNA a much simpler system is thought to have given rise to the DNA system that works in eukaryotic cells. The DNA information system employed in bacteria is much simpler. Bacteria were around about a billion years before euk. cells. And will likely be far into the future, when multi cellular euk are gone. A simple system coming before and lasting longer.

Do I need to continue or do you understand how wrong you are?

Wrong about what?

[spurraider21]

Wrong about what?
:lmao

[spurraider21]

avante do you understand ANYTHING about DNA besides regurgitating that "it's complex"

[Avante]

Bolt just ran the first under 10 indoor 100m and avante is too worried about evolution to notice. so sad.


You are kidding right?

[Avante]

:lmao

Where did I make any statement where I'm right or wrong applies?

[pgardn]

Wrong about what?

About claiming the DNA system now employed by some euk organisms being a miracle. Magic, poof, too complex, must be God.

And btw, the system is flawed and far from perfect even though it is complex. A computer programmer would never invent a system so easily flawed and containing mistakes. But it works for NOW, and that's good enough from an evolutionary perspective.

[Avante]

avante do you understand ANYTHING about DNA besides regurgitating that "it's complex"

Like you once said trying to explain this is too complex. Obviously I've read all abvout it hell I did that today, do I really need a long rerun of all that?

[pgardn]

I don't go into the tech section and try to explain computer set ups because I don't know that much.
I don't challenge you on your track records and blues artists because I don't know that much.
I don't go spouting off about NBA contracts and all the minutiae that goes with team rules via the collective bargaining agreement.

But you have no problem throwing up shit on things you know very little about and feel totally comfortable. In the real world, where people get paid for having a clue, that's called fraud... Mate.

[spurraider21]

Like you once said trying to explain this is too complex. Obviously I've read all abvout it hell I did that today, do I really need a long rerun of all that?
i'm asking you a yes or no question though, not something that requires pages of explanation

[pgardn]

You wanna try me little fella?

Hmmmm....

You are in the wrong heat, at the wrong meet... little fella.

[Avante]

Hmmmm....

You are in the wrong heat, at the wrong meet... little fella.

All I know little fella is all you've done is tap dance.

ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey pgardn, do you think DNA just came about by chance...ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Avante]

WHO CAN TELL ME HOW DNA CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE??????????????????????????

Damn people how many ways can you ignore that question?

[pgardn]

All I know little fella is all you've done is tap dance.

ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey pgardn, do you think DNA just came about by chance...ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The DNA system most likely arose from RNA genius.
Did you read anything I wrote? Anything?

[TE]

The DNA system most likely arose from RNA genius.
Did you read anything I wrote? Anything?
Yeah...if you analyze the chemical structure of both there's one fundamental difference between the two. One extra hydroxyl group. Avante is trolling tbh.

[pgardn]

yes I do...

And I can point at all the flaws in what you posted above but you would not understand the explanations for one basic reason, you don't have a clue as to what you have posted.

Next.

Which is why I wrote the above to begin with.

You are out of your league, like a child that has walked into the middle of a complicated novel and drooled on the pages.
And settle down, you are the guy who never takes anything seriously...

[TE]

Not to mention RNA being more reactive due to that hydroxyl group

[pgardn]

Yeah...if you analyze the chemical structure of both there's one fundamental difference between the two. One extra hydroxyl group. Avante is trolling tbh.

If trolling is an attempt to make a complete fool of yourself...

And there are more diff. between the two molecules that actually are a bit more compelling in showing unity and diversity. Unity and diversity being a very important theme in a fairly complex discussion, molecular evolution.

[Avante]

The DNA system most likely arose from RNA genius.
Did you read anything I wrote? Anything?

Not sking about..."most likely"....genius. I;m asking you if you think something as complex as DNA could just happen by chance? Are you capable of....yes or no?

[TE]

If trolling is an attempt to make a complete fool of yourself...

And there are more diff. between the two molecules that actually are a bit more compelling in showing unity and diversity. Unity and diversity being a very important theme in a fairly complex discussion, molecular evolution.
Avante is here just to get a rise out of posters tbh.

and yes, I agree with you. There are many more differences. I'm more of a thermodynamics guy tho so you can imagine what aspects I look into more. Thermodynamics is lyfe.

[Avante]

Which is why I wrote the above to begin with.

You are out of your league, like a child that has walked into the middle of a complicated novel and drooled on the pages.
And settle down, you are the guy who never takes anything seriously...

There is complicated about this, why do you think there is?