Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

New test post

July 24, 2013

I have changed.

Advertisements

Why Macro evolution theory is bad science

March 23, 2012

Any good scientific theory must . . .

1. Be based on an explanation that has a high probability of being true

2. Account for ALL evidence

3. Be based on evidence that is accurate and relevant

4. Be testable

5. Be comprehendable within a human mind

6. Be able to change or be falsified based on new evidence

 

These are some of the very few basic requirements of any good theory. Macro evolution theory and abiogenesis theory fail miserably on the first and second points in particular and in my next post I will prove it.

banned from blog simply for questioning evolution

March 15, 2012

It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.

I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.

I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.

banned from blog simply for questioning evolution

March 15, 2012

It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.

I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.

I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.

This video is so stupid

February 26, 2012

First of all . .. every species has a limited range of change to work with. Secondly, a species will not make positive changes simply because it benefits them. There has to be a physical and chemical basis for the change to happen. Thirdly, the experiment mentioned NEVER GENERATED complete strands of working DNA. The more I study evolution . . . the more I realize that it is just as much a religion as Creationism. People believe in evolution because they WANT TO BELIEVE.

Like I said

September 13, 2011

According to . . .ehm . . wikipedia itself … . carbon dating cannot tell us if something is billions of years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating . . . .. . read it and weep . . . . 62,000 years tops. And you know what they use to deal with long ages? Well according to wikipedia . . tree rings . . hahaha.   also see

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm    50,000 years tops

 

4.5 billion years is obviously completely hypothetical . ..  with what little I know about the current dating of things almost nothing can be reliably or realistically dated past 1 million years (I’m being generous). Carbon dating is a far cry from being any kind of  exception to this rule. Nobody can actually calculate an age of 4.5 billion years (see above).

 

If you want to know why the limit is 50,000 years I believe the answer is best summed up on the following post

http://www.chacha.com/question/why-does-carbon-dating-only-work-too-50000-years-old

 

Carbon decays too quickly.  You’ve been had.

They are desperately afraid of creationists in uk

August 29, 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationist-descends-on-britain-to-take-debate-on-evolution-into-the-classroom-474985.html

 

Wow . .. .apparently three days of creationist teaching is enough to scare the living dead out of these people. Now I KNOW they are hiding things. If they really believed creationism was fake they would just laugh it off and forget about it. But no . . .. they are AFRAID that a three day lecture might actually CONVINCE someone that is a PERFECT STRANGER. Wow . . . . just wow. You would think they would not take this so seriously . . .. but they DO.   What are they afraid of?  Just three days of multicultural exposure in a COLLEGE is CHILD ABUSE???  What on earth?!!!! They are crazy!!

Exploring geology a bit . . . apparently some rocks MUCH YOUNGER than previously though

August 27, 2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810132903.htm

The above finding is not the least bit surprising to me. I predict that this trend will continue until old earth geologists are forced to rethink the age of ALL the layers. The universe is just more complex and younger than many scientists want to believe . . . because of MATERIALISM. There is just too much that can’t be explained by a big bang . . . the list is very long.

hmmmmm . . . . .it looks like

August 24, 2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110824131535.htm

Looks like an alligator to me, possibly an extinct variation. Of course, without any dna testing you can’t really know for sure if it is alligator or maybe some other lizard type. And without actually seeing it give birth there really is no way to know how its gene pool diversifies. But in spite of all this these evolutionists just somehow KNOW deep down it must be an ancestor.  It is cheap science if you ask me. Look, they haven’t proven it and yet, here it is, EVIDENCE of ancestry. I’m not stupid. This isn’t scientific. They could have at least been more honest with the headline and admitted it was only hypothetical at best. You see this is why I can’t trust these scientists when they say things like THIS. Evolution is the only science I know of where the answer is ALREADY ASSUMED FROM THE BEGINNING.   Its like somebody in a back room just rewrites the story of our ancestry based on this poultry evidence and then the newsmen take the new story line and say “see they have told us, so it is true”  and then they start typing away a presumed fact that is no fact at all.

 

All you really need to do is look at the man behind the curtain . .. . . then suddenly the wizard(evolution as fact) isn’t such a wizard anymore.

This is impossible

August 20, 2011

Assuming that mutations just shuffled through all possible proteins to get the ones we have now . .. . there is no way on earth that similar proteins would all be SHARED by organisms.  In other words, you should not have 1 million species that all use many of the SAME proteins.  Do you really think that just by chance three million different branches on the evolutionary tree would still end up using the SAME proteins???  That . . . . . is impossible.   It is equal to the chance of 3 million people each winning the same lottery number millions of times. ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

I don’t need to prove wrong the idea that chance disturbances to DNA COULD form the species when OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ELSE WAS AT WORK. If such mutation did it there would be ZERO gene similarity between species .   You simply must calculate how many possible protein combinations can exist in theory. Do it!!!

And then you have to ask yourself why some of them just . .. didn’t evolve. In fact how convenient . . . . they just show up in some new species and HAPPEN to stop evolving because the species needs that gene so badly!!!  Oh but it gets so much better.

Evolutionists claim that ALL life came from a single early individual creature that was simple . . . . like a single cell.     So by this logic bugs and people came from the same cell!!!   So why DID BUGS STOP EVOLVING???

Its so convenient really . . . . they all just happened to evolve at just the right paces  . . . to form ecosystems . . . THAT WORK.

Why did rats stop evolving???

Why did dogs stop evolving???

Why did chimps stop evolving???

Why did whales stop evolving???

We have here examples of creatures that NEVER increased in complexity by that much.     .. . . WHY??? And why do they SHARE so many genes?? Ok there are a lot of genes they don’t share . .. . but