Posts Tagged ‘bad science’

The Boyd Bushman Hoax and Appeal to Authority Fallacy

July 11, 2012 3 comments

Boyd Bushman being interviewed by the mathematician, UFO investigator, theoretical physcist and New Ager, David Sereda

An image of one of Boyd supposedly demonstrating anti-gravity

David Sereda, idiot New Ager genius

I saw this comment on YouTube, which was in reply to someone who said that a former employee, a scientific researcher and inventor, in other words a research and development worker, named Boyd Bushman, was a fraud. Whether he really was an employee of Lockheed I don’t know, but he does have at least one patent. But so, in reply to the one calling him a fraud, someone made an illogical comment and perpetuated/parroted a common logical fallacy used by Big Bangers and Evolutionists/Mainstream Science cultists/anti-fundamentalist Christians (fundamentalists are also known as Reformed Christians aka Calvinists and wrongly as conservative Christians who are usually Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Free Will (Arminian) Christians, though some Reformed Christians do call themselves conservatives, which I think is confusing):

“Don’t you love all the experts on youtube who think they are smarter than a senior scientist from lockheed martin.. Yea, all the while they are working at mcdonalds, yet when they are on the internet they suddenly become expert physicists, describing how experts from Lockheed are wrong and are frauds.. Google patents – Boyd Bushman

My reply:

Just because someone works for Lockheed or performed odd experiments doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about or won’t do deceptive things, AT ALL. A good example is mainstream scientists: they spread bad theories like the big bang and evolution, and stars-from-gas using the good base of the scientific method, why?: money and fame, and many of them have narcissism disorder (narcissists tend to be at the front of the face of everything in the world, including governments. That is because of their ill desire for large amounts of attention and praise).

Boyd even, in one video deliberately talks very vague in a childish and unhelpful way, childish in that he’s not saying anything specific but what it is common for any seasoned scientist like David Sereda who interviewed him, rather, Boyd said “watch nature”. Well what scientist DOESN’T OBSERVE NATURE?! Hello: NEWTON, EINSTEIN, GALILEO and on and on, and biologists regularly attempt to copy God’s work, looking for new industrial or medical chemicals in plants and animals.

Leedskalnin, was he a scientist? Do you know who he is? He was the “McDonalds cashier” scientist as a narcissistic scientist  might say, but despite being a “nobody” lacking college degrees still made an enormous monument using what seemed to be by a combination of antigravity and the use of a traditional weights, levers and pulley moving method. To use the McDonalds cashier insult is a bad stereotype, since genius and truth spring as much from idiots and the lowly as much as the wealthy and elite-schooled; it’s a very wrong stereotype.

Another reason it’s not wise to make fun of McDonald’s employees, is because, supposing for all you know you’re making fun of someone who only has a part time job is an employee there and yet has expertise in some field of physics or some other science field, like logic, theology, maths or physics (and does it take a great imagination to consider that many McDonald’s cashiers are college or university students in some science class, including physics?) and may even be a paid teacher of any of those, maybe even a theoretical physics teacher, which is are types people like yourself usually exalt above as superior persons. And in this so called “bad world economy” it’s very likely that many people of prestige have some second lowly job, especially being that theoretical science isn’t an easy job to profit from. If you hadn’t noticed Michio does a lot of interviews, do you think he does them all for free? Someone of prestige with many high degrees could have some second lowly job just to get rid of the last few payments they own on a loan or to get a loan, or make the final payments on whatever or to help care for a new baby or adopted son or daughter they have to live comfortably.

Back to Leedskalnin: you could reasonably think of him as a type of Boyd Bushman, because tho he was able to pull off amazing things, he didn’t say anything useful enough to be able to duplicate his feats, instead he gave a theory which was so vague (like Boyd) it amounted to vain showing off. That is the case with Boyd. Boyd, Leedskalnin, Maurice Ward (supposed inventor of Starlite) and Hutchison are, in comparison to the inventor Morgado, the inventor of the MYT Engine and Tesla useless people, and shameful even.

Rather than mocking McDonald’s cashiers as being stupid and unreliable for scientific truth and as none being people with any expertise in science, it’s Mainstream Scientists, including any atheist, humanist, pagan, Armininan, New Age, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim ones, who should be mocked, who should be called “kooks” or “crackpots”. But you shouldn’t say that to just anyone’s face, because you wouldn’t want to unnecessarily insult someone or provoke a violent person to harm you or someone else. They should be called those things if they teach their bad beliefs or endorse them by name, like saying, “Yes being a Muslim is good” or “There’s nothing wrong with being a pagan” or “Fundamentalism is bad (fundamentalism is just belief in basic teachings of the Bible necessary for being a good Christian).” I’m not saying that just because someone is a kook or crackpot or stupid that they can’t come up with anything useful or don’t do anything useful or that nothing useful can be learned from accidental discoveries they make, just that any severely bad teachings they have or believe would make them those things, as opposed to simply having some lowly job at McDonald’s and/or not having any degrees or prestigious awards or prestigious scientists agreeing with you or some popular people.

Also, to attack someone as having illegitimate critique skill or judgment merely because they work at McDonald’s, or as cashier or some other “lowly” job there is called an “Ad Hominem Fallacy”, which is when you personally insult someone for something they do that is far from directly related to what they arguing about, merely talking about or endorsing.

Related Articles:

Autodidactic Hall of Fame – Self-educated People Who’ve Made a Difference

6 Uneducated Amateurs Whose Genius Changed the WorldRead more: 6 Uneducated Amateurs Whose Genius Changed the World (

1 Cor 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Cor 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
1 Cor 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1 Cor 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1 Cor 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. – ESV

Psalm 8:2: From out of the mouths of infants and sucklings you have established strength on account of your adversaries, to cause the silence of the enemy and vengeful foe.

Matthew 11:25: “Jesus said, ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.'”

John 7:24: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

UPDATE: Recently Boyd Bushman was shown in a video as having “disclosed” that aliens and their ships were here on Earth at Area 51 and “24 hours a day working on UFOs”. In one picture he showed what was to me an obviously fake alien, and used poorly made photographs to use as his evidence. The cameraman interviewing him seemed to be doing a deliberately poor job interviewing him and even keeping the camera in focus or used a deliberately poor camera. One commenter on showed an obscenely titled link to a model statuette of the same fake-looking alien Boyd had shown in one of his crappy pictures. Even though that was pointed out in the comments, the one doing so did not get any votes up as far as I could see, rather those praising Boyd and/or while criticizing his and the camera man’s method of presentation were the ones getting votes up. Why is Youtube filled with such gullible idiots? I wonder if the Internet naturally attracts narcissists and those who are gullible and wanting attention, and those who are not gullible and attention-craving abstain from wasting their time voting, in general, to their hurt in many cases. I say that because votes and comments can persuade others to be stupid and evil or wise in a morally good way.

Boyd Bushman Fake Alien (Doll) Hoax Picture Boyd Bushman Fake Alien (Doll) Hoax Picture Comparison
Obviously a doll, and in the second comparison picture it’s obvious the “teeth and smile” are jpeg noise from picture compression. Being that the keywords on the were the same obscene ones as the page of the full picture of the doll it’s obvious this is from the hoaxer, having a laugh at everyone.

By the way, if anyone does want to invest their time or money in a real anti-gravity saucer project, one you can see being made in real time, consider funding my project at, which some asshole/s on Craigslist keep flagging away. If you have any mechanical engineering skills and knowledge of physics and would like to apply for a job helping to build this craft attraction go ahead and email me.

Categories: Logic Fallacies Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feeding Hummingbirds: Honey and Sugar

This is an example of what happens when you parrot something without checking the facts and simply believing a thing because it sounds scientific or by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, concensus, emotion and committing the fallacy of assuming. I found a thread on GardenWeb started by an Alicia on whether or not feeding honey to hummingbirds is truly an unsafe thing or not (I injected my replies under the name “chosenbygrace”:

From Alicia, (hummerwatcher) “I found in the FAQ for this forum the following statement: “A honey water solution served up in hummingbird feeders can quickly become toxic and deadly. Honey rapidly ferments and also cultures a deadly bacterium. Contrary to popular belief, honey is not “more natural” than the cane sugar that is sold as white sugar. Honey has been chemically altered by honey bees: it is flower nectar and whatever ever else the honey bee ingested, digested, and spit back out again. Honey is nothing like the sucrose found in flower nectar and white sugar.”

I have fed a solution of pure honey/water in my hummingbird feeders for 12 of the 27 years I’ve maintained the feeders. I’ve noticed no ill effects on the apparently happy, healthy and certainly populous hummers who live, breed, nest, fight, flee, dipsy-dive, display, perch, torpor, twitter/screech and otherwise carry on as hummers do around here from April to October each year. I first started using dilute honey as hummer feed after I noticed hummers feeding from an open-source feeder I had placed near my garden beehives one Spring day (a modified chick feeder with an inverted quart jar of feed solution).

I have not observed any difference between the fermentation proclivities of honey/water as compared with cane or beet sugar/water solutions. Nor have I observed any greater tendency to culture bacteria or fungi… Of course, cleanliness of feeders and frequent sterilization are a given when feeding hummingbirds.

Is there a specific bacterium which a honey/water solution will culture and not refined white sugar/water?

I would like to know if anyone has any serious data on feeding honey solution to hummingbirds. Is there any scientific, physiological, biological chemical-analysis research to back-up the broad, generalized and somewhat inaccurate statements made in the FAQ quote shown above? (Honeybees neither ‘digest’ plant nectars, nor ‘spit back out’ the nectar… they do add certain enzymes to the nectar while carrying it in their ‘honey stomach’… and, yes, the nectars are, therefore, chemically different from the pure plant nectars. But pure plant nectars — the natural and best of hummer food — are also quite different chemically from monosource and chemically-refined cane or beet sugars.)

I will appreciate any well-researched information which anyone here might offer on this subject. Even anecdotal observations…

If someone can show to me that feeding honey/water solution is harmful to the hummers, I will, naturally, have to re-assess what I have been doing these past 12 years… with no apparent ill effects.

Alicia … a hummer feeder and watcher since 1981 … a beekeeper since 1970″ birding_nut, “From what I understand from doing a search on google, honey contains a fungus (unsure of the type) that can be transferred to a hummingbirds tongue and could prove fatal. However, I couldn’t find an actual research study cited. I do know that you are not suppose to feed honey to human babies under the age of 1-year because honey may contain the harmful bacterium Clostridium botulinum which causes a rare case of food poisoning.”

And peanuts can also cause rare cases of allergic reactions. What’s your point, ban peanuts?

birding_nut “I would guess that hummingbirds would be susceptible to this as well,”

There’s bacteria everywhere that rarely kills animals, that doesn’t mean don’t feed them food that rarely kills, that’s plain dumb and an appeal to inneffiency just like the greenies would have, ironically, millions or billions of people die to switch entirely to solar panels from oil.

“since the type C form of this bacteria is what causes huge die-offs of waterfowl”

hummers are not waterfowl, nor human babies, as PETAns and other anti-tests-on-animal people would tell you.

“when they ingest it…usually from fermented grain or other sources, they die,”

hummers don’t eat fermented grain

“maggots containing more concentrated amounts of the toxin are then get the picture.”

No I don’t get the picture, nor does the rest of the world, unless you mean getting the wrong picture or one made up based on nonsense. So, maggots get the bacteria in them, maggots which have super immune systems and whose feces kill all kinds of bacteria, AND? What then happens: the ecosytem collapses? The maggots evolve into walking singing dancing sex-having humanoids? It’s not obvious.

“Thus, I wouldn’t feed honey solutions to hummingbirds”

Thus you made a bunch of non-sequiturs or statements very similar to them.

“based on the above possibilities of contamination.”

What are you talking about man? You can’t boil honey water, only sugar water? Becauuuuse?

“Boiled sugar water is probably safer”

Probably because?

“and is what is pretty much universally recommended”

Pretty much = scientific statement? And who cares about concensus? What matters is what actually is true. Catholics are the majority, but does that mean their or their Popes’ claims, whom they say is God’s representative on Earth, that it’s okay to worship dead humans and pray to them and to angels is merely “venerating” and not worshiping things that aren’t gods or going against God’s word? Noooooo.

“on most of the sites I visited from the google search. Not sure what would happen if you boiled the honey solution first?”

Why not do a scientific experiment!


Signing it with BN really added to the discussion. Do you love attention or what? Your user name wasn’t sufficient as a signature?

jimmyjojo then said “This is so sad…”

What’s sad is logical fallacies, like your trollish appeal to emotion at the beginning of your reply, that is what is sad, not DISAGREEING with your feelings or opinions. Stop acting like God and a leading authority on anything, when you’re obviously a person with narcissism disorder from your rants on this thread.

Jimmy then said, ” Quote [“]If someone can show to me that feeding honey/water solution is harmful to the hummers, I will, naturally, have to re-assess what I have been doing these past 12 years… with no apparent ill effects.”

What ill effects would you like to be shown?”


Then jimmy the troll said, “Studies like this?

I just love people like this.”

Oh Jimmy really? You just love people like that? You just love making conniving prideful arrogant statements like that, that is what you love, you love to show off and get attention to make yourself appear to be better then others, and to make everyone else look inferior to you. No jimmy, you’re not superior because you talk with an arrogant know-it-all tone or words. That’s not what true intelligence is. You actually have to THINK CAREFULLY, no lazilly making cheap shots and parroting cliches without evidence to back them up.

“A pile of leading experts tell them something and that isn’t good enough.

Let’s look at that page shall we (love that shall we cliche jimmy? arrogant trolls like you looove cliches like that):

“Page Not Found

Oh dear, we couldn’t seem to find that”

Jimminysnappits! Page not found!

But something tells me one page doesn’t automatically = “a pile of leading experts” and that “a pile” is not a mountain, and that you, being a narcissist, are exagerrating and lying. A pile jimmy the science ignorant, is not the end and be all of knowledge or science. Just as scientists themselves say (and more intelligent parrots than you (especially when attacking Christians): “science is always correcting itself”, “science is always improving” and the fall back “we’re still learning”. But you being an arbitrary narcissist juts his head out in trollish fashion witha big troll face, saying, “Nooo noo nooo, this is sad, this is a troll, nanny nanny look at this study it’s proof of everything, ur a bad person, go away troll”. How about grow up jimmy and go away with your mental disorder and go live like a hermit so you stop annoying the sane people to death?

Then jimmy the troll said, “This link says “Honey ferments rapidly when diluted with water and can kill hummingbirds.

And that’s proof, cuz it says so on that page.

What you’re really saying Alicia is that your research since 1981 is better than the experts and scientists in the hummingbird field.”

Jimmy, you’re arrogant and a lazy researcher. You’re lying about who is an expert and committing the fallacies “appeal to authority” and “appeal to concensus” and you’re not even getting the concensus right. And you’re so unintelligent you don’t think about the fact that not all science fields agree, and that there is conflicting and inconclusive data conflicts in different fields of any industry. What do you say about this Mr. Jimmy Knows All:

“It’s a well known fact”

Read that again Mr. Jimmy Expert on Whose A Leading Expert and What Gets the Final Say:


“that honey is a poor source of nutrients, “Honey contains little amino nitrogen, with the lowest levels found in the lightest honeys”, the compleat Meadmaker (pg 54). Add to that honey’s acidic nature, and poor pH buffering capabilties and you have three factors that can adversely affect the yeast’s ability to effectively to its job… Honey contains very little nutrients for yeast growth. You will need to supplement with a well balance nutrient like Fermaid-K. ? Honey also contains very little (if any) buffering material. The pH will drop dramatically during the first few hours of fermentation, sometimes as low as 2.7-2.9. This will seriously stress the yeast, producing a very unhealthy yeast cell resulting in a long drawn-out fermentation. The problem can be minimized by adding a small amount of potassium carbonate at the beginning of the fermentation. Strive for the fermentation to be completed in two weeks.”

Does that sound like “quickly ferments” or does it sound like a person who is gullible and eager for praise but not willing to do the hard work to get it, and who has a problem with assuming things and not learning his lesson to NOT ASSUME, but who keeps doing so because of his mentally ill craving to bully others and get attention and praise he doesn’t deserve? It sounds like you are a myth repeating parrot, full of logical fallacies, including presumptions, because you have malignant narcissism disorder. The troll is you.

“How about this then, you show us your research proving honey is OK to use?”

Shown, Mr. Pretentious “How About This Then?”

Asking things witha smug tone and placing a question mark at the end, asking things with a questioning doubting “ah hah I got you” tone doesn’t make you right. You’ve got it backwards Jimmy, you celebrate (and immorally gloat) and take on the tone of someone who knows what he’s talking about before actually knowing what you’re talking about. You think doing a search on google and spending five minutes reading makes you a leading authority on what’s true. WRONG. You have EVIDENCE, not pot shots (true science is not pot shots and cheap shots and one time experiments, Jimmy the non expert in science, it’s repetition). You’re a shallow couch potato who thinks skimming for five or less minutes is enough to know the truth, and then you become biased once you’ve made up your mind, or made a fool of yourself by insulting others and bashing them over your beliefs.

“Never Feed Honey Solution to Hummingbirds […] what is this?”

It’s another page with mere claims, just like you. How about this: do actual research.

In Jimmy’s dumbed down world, Jimmy’s anti-science world, science isn’t do the experiments for yourself, it’s “Just believe whoever I say is right, don’t do any actual hard research, don’t you dare question, just believe whoever I say is right, whoever I say is a leading expert, whatever I say is an unclimbable pile, whatever I say is the concensus, don’t pay attention to anything else, ignore your nothing 12 years of feeding, that’s just nothign to talk about, just ignore it and just look at this 4 week study over hear done by guys in white lab coats who went to Harvard whose evolutionist friends granted them a BA in general bird studies and gave them extracredit and a $1000 grant to see if any hummeringbirds got sick a little when eating honey water.” You’re very gullible and illogical Jimmy, and a simpleton.

Jimmy, “You know if you Google “honey hummingbirds” there are 343,000 links most of which say pretty much the same thing,

No Jimmy with narcissism disorder, they don’t all pretty much the same thing. No chronically lazy minded Jimmy, you did not read 343,000 links and then go right to posting a reply to this person. The first three pages standardized pages on google and any other popular search engine, as every serious researcher knows, are the most relavant and 99.9% ONLY relavant pages. What comes after has a rapidly increasing irrelavance and is almost entirely ignored by serious reearchers due to knowing that fact after looking at them many times. You are an arrogant liar.

“and that is never put honey water in hummingbird feeders it’s been found to kill them.”

Appeal to repetition, another logical fallacy and a sign of someone with a NPD. Stop thinking that repeating and belittling makes you the winner in the Right One deparment. It makes you look, to people who know better, like a smug bully who uses arrogant belittlement to bully others into doing whatever he wants them to do.

“Now why would someone in their right mind argue with that? Unless?”

No, what you meant was, “Now why would someone argue WITH ME, JIMMY, THE ONE WHO IS ALWAYS RIGHT, PERFECT, unless they were crazy?”

You’re mentally ill jimmy, a living insult machine due to having been traumatized after too much flattery when you were little, and having been flattered too much by your parent or parents, you never built up the healthy mental ability to deal with criticism or bullying. Now you are a chronic bullier, forever trying to triumph over the humiliation you experienced as a child, by bullying everyone and anyone, for the smallest of things even.

buckmaster, “The tough thing is that it’s tough to tell what long-term effects anything is having on hummers.”

It’s not tough if they are tagged or you have them in captivity or disect them and see what happens after whatever. Not tough if you have the right equipment. This isn’t a study on weak electromagnetic waves on hbs from powerlines five miles away, it’s just diluted honey, buck.

“Unless they drop over at the feeder, you can’t always really tell if honey or red food coloring or whatever is having any effect on them. I know we all have our hummers we know by sight, but unless you’re banding the little guys, how can you be sure the bird that returns this year is the same “Junior” or “Betsy” from last year?”

Sure, tag it or photograph it and get it to get used to being around you upclose. Can you really be sure they all look like clones? Have you ever tried to tell them apart by regularly getting up close to them while they feed?

“Point is, why take the chance?”

For the sake of furthering knowledge and wisdom. Why not further science in this case? Are we talking about murdering a human, or anything that even comes close to being as being as valuable as a human?

“Plus, honey’s way more expensive (unless you keep hives, I guess)…”

And if your not someone who likes the thought of feeding birds refined sugar which is not natural and which is known to cause diabeted in humans from over use (not that birds are humans, but one of the people in this thread makes some comparisons of not quite and hardly related things).

“I’d break the bank if I used it instead of sugar water!”

Unless you didn’t regularly use the feeder and just wanted to see hummingbirds now and then.

christy2828 then said,

“Just want to point out that this user joined TODAY.”

That’s a logical fallacy (in the context you used it) in which you imply that this person is a troll for MERELY ASKING if feeding honey to hb’s was okay after all, and being that they said they’ve been doing it for 12 years (shouldn’t that make an impression on you christy? Or is 12 years nothing Miss LOOK AT ME TYPE “TODAY” IN CAPS! APPEAL TO MY EMPHASIS ON THAT WORD!”?

“For some strange reason, people like to get a rise out of people on GW forums.”

First you said it’s a person who joined today, then you said it’s PEOPLE ON GW forums. You’re very confused obviously, and I’d say a narcissist, being that you used the cliche “for some strange reason” and without any evidence, nor of it being strange. Trolls like you are everywhere, people with narcissism disorder, and being that they have a hankering for one upping everyone and trying to get everyone to think of them as awesome, it’s not strange at all that they’d poke their heads into wherever they’ve chosen to dwell and be a pest like you. Why are you insulting this person, and how did you contribute with your mere insults and pretentious babble? You made another fallacy: appeal to time. Since when are trolls only new to a forum or anywhere? So no one has been a long standing bully anywhere? There are no places that consist in large part of bullies or tyrants or stupid people? No governments, no leadership positions, no websites no homes? You’re truly simpleminded and stupid. It’s due to people like you that trolls do embed like ticks forever, you’re one of them.

“Take it with a grain of salt,”

Another unhelpful cliche typical of narcissists, to back up an your logical fallacies and insults. Why not say, “nanny nanny” to the person daring to question the status quo, daring to questiont the consensus, who dared, oh god know, to dare try and do their own experiment rather than having blind faith in Christy the Lover of Sophisticated Sounding Cliches More Than Hard Original Thinking?

“and let this thread fall down. Christy :)”

Christ: “Yeah, hah hah, hee hee, nanny nanny, smirk, lets oh do say we do indeed let this horrible thread this person started, how dare they! hah, let’s let it… smirk, fall down.” Christy squints her eyes at hummerwatcher Alicia and smiles while looking at her and whispering to her friend jimmyjojotheclownfromcanada just loud enough for Alicia to hear, “Hehe, Alicia is ugly, look at her clothes, she hasn’t been here long enough. Can you believe she actually feeds hummingbirds with honey water? What a stupid creep. She’s a troll haha. Troll. Look at her ugly hair. She wishes she was popular like us. Stupid freshman. Hey I know, lets go to her house at night and take her feeder and egg her house.” *Jimmy smiles back at Christy, yes lets teach that terribly arrogant troll a lesson she’ll never forget! She’ll never poke her noncomformist head back in GW ever again and we shall remain at the top! I bet she’s one of those stupid creationists anyways, they always have to try and get attention! Stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers!” Christy, “I bet she doesn’t believe in global warming! I bet she is one of those weirdos who doesn’t agree with NASA and the leading pile of experts who showed us the hockey stick and schemed in their emails to each other to supress data showing they were wrong and doesn’t believe in melting icebergs crashing everywhere or polar bears and penguins dying left and right and antarctica turning into habitable land for humans to enjoy and that plants actually breath carbon dioxide and thrive in it! SHE PROBABLY BELIEVES THE SUN WARMS THE PLANET LOL!”

sidk “mbuckmaster makes a good point. Unless you are scientifically studying the hummingbirds you don’t have any idea what the honey is doing to them.”

Yeah, a hummerwatcher who fed hummers honey water for 12 years is just a troll that stands a mile away looking through a telescope at hummers feeding on honey water and does trollish things in a hole like joining GW to have fun trying to annoy christyconnivingsmileyfacetroll, sidktroll and jimmyjojothenobodytrollfromcanada and everyone else on GW (all of whom except for newbies like Alicia the noncomformist happen to agree with whatever those three trolls say).

sidk, “I have an old book by an English guy named Mobbs who wrote about keeping hummingbirds in aviaries. It’s not a scientific book”

Then why mention it, and why insult Alicia for doing a 12 year feeding of hummers with honey water when johnnybobo and christy completely dismiss it as having any value? Do as you say not as you do right hypocrites?

“but he goes into a lot of detail on particular hummingbirds including how long they lived in captivity. It was usually just a few weeks or months, which made me really sad and angry to read. When he could tell what they died of it was usually a yeast infection (candida). He fed them honey because back then they thought it was more natural. Now that we know better”

“Now we know better” because of a non-scientific study and a dead link and two pages of mere claims no longer than a few sentences vs a 12 year at least casual observation Alicia? Question: are you a moron? And trolls like you would arbitrarily to make themselves look good, say, “Oh that’s an outdated study” if the book had disagreed. Further, you said, “usually”. So you made a casual connection and now that’s proof it’s honey that’s at fault, and honey can’t be improved, can’t be boiled. What simpletons, what petty neurotic babies. I can just imagine you all talking all speedy when making your comments acting all freaked out and with subdued anger, “Lets get rid of Alicia hurry so we can get back to our real lives. She’s upsetting our worldview, she’ll make fools of us if we don’t shut her up fast. Kill the thread don’t give her anymore attention. She’s like a creationist!”

“and make their artificial nectar from white sugar”

And don’t you know they need us and our artificial refined white sugar? Don’t you know humans have nothing better to do then feed hummers and that they would all die out if not for us. They would suffer horribly. I thought “natural evolution and humans living off raw veggies and gray water” is the God Saviour? Which leading expert on New Age Stuff should I follow?

“some zoos have been able to keep hummingbirds alive for years. Wat does that tell you?”

It tells me you made a mere claim they’ve been able to keep a vague unsaid amount of unsaid type of hummingbirds alive for years” and that you’re a confused and illogical idiot who doesn’t know how to make logical connections when trying to express himself.

“Here is a link that might be useful: Troll”

I’m betting you don’t understand that page sidk and think that merely because you posted it you must be an expert on Trolls and couldn’t possibly be one. Typical idiot-think and a typical troll tactic.

mbuckmaster, “Good info, sidk…and anecdotal evidence like that is really the best we have with hummingbirds. Sounds fairly conclusive to me as far as it goes. And a shrewdly included link! ;)”

Someone sounds sane, that’s dangerous. jimmyjojo, “Sidk, One thing many people in North America don’t know is that in Europe “humming birds” (two words) is a common word for a type of nectar eating sunbird. They are found through the middle east and into Africa, and are kept in Europe as caged birds much like people do to parrots over here.”

Wow the parrot comparison just really made everything more understandable. *rolls eyes*. And this is proof now that hummbers will die and the entire eco system will collapse, and that maggots something or other will uh, Mars is crashing into Venus and hummers love geodes ten four ten four over and out do you read me that Alicia is a creationist religious extremist and global warming denier and that Jews suffered nothing during Nazi march of dimes? I’m sure you get the picture.

jimmydodo, pardon, “jojo” I mean, “When you read on the internet or in books about “keeping” humming-birds it’s a totally different genus of bird.”

What are you talking about and what’s this have to do with honey fed hummers? You are a lemon salesman man.

“I hope that person is a Troll and not someone killing our hummingbirds”

Cuz trolls are people that would harm animals. And what a moron, based on one study, a page that isn’t even cached on google, a study that didn’t say anything about mass killings from what little you mentioned, nothing close, you’re exagerrating it up to “killing YOUR hummingbirds” “our” as in “whoever agrees with me jimmyjojo”? You’re malignant narcissist, which includes paranoia and extreme self-centeredness for whoever doesn’t know. What’s next jimmy, are you going to say Alicia is going to be responsible for another holocaust? You have “extremist” crazyiness in place of logic. I hope you don’t have kids or friends to drive insane.

“through sheer arrogance.”

Did you say that while loudly sipping your gourmet 10 year aged wine, little boy? Mr. Sheer Arrogance says you can kill his hummingbirds (which just cannot, oh, oh oh oh cannot belong to THOSE kinds of people like, ew, oh perish the thought, people like… eh, ew, ugh, gross, disgusting, EW PEOPLE WITH OPINIONS THAT DON’T MATCH MY PRESUMPTIONS… PEOPLE LIKE, EH EH EH, UHHHH, UH LEE, UH, AH, ALICIA. God I finally said it, that name. I must wash my royal princely mouth out. I shall never say that name again so long as I, jimmyjojoofkahnadah, lives.

sidk, “Mobbs”


sidk, continued, “may have also written about sunbirds or other nectar drinking birds but the book I have is specifically about hummingbirds. I haven’t run across any examples of that confusion in other books about aviculture but I guess there’s no shortage of ignorance about nature on either side of the Atlantic.”

I love that, “no shortage of ignorance”. Makes you sound like very wise person in his mid forties. You must be very smart. Your comment about Mobbs maybe having written about such and such really furthered the discussion on whether or not IT’S A MYTH THAT FEEDING HUMMINGBIRDS DILUTED HONEY WILL CAUSE HUMMINGBIRD MASS DIE OFFS, let alone kill a few in even a year vs refined sugar WHICH ALSO HASN’T BEEN OBSERVED IN ANY LONG TERM STUDIES AS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE IGNORANT BABBLE IN THIS THREAD MADE BY THE “NO NO NO, YOU’RE A TROLL” oafs here.

sidk, “I can’t imagine why anybody would call any other bird a “humming bird” since only hummingbirds have wings that hum.”

*Falls asleep. Wakes up.* I have an idea: lets not feed humming birds at all, even he abandoned ones, cuz that’s interferring with Mother Evolution and you’ll end up in Hell for that. And it’s not natural to feed refined sugar water let alone in plastic feeders with BPA in them most likely probsly prob, and the sugar water and feeding dishes can get dirty, and fill with bacteria and viruses very quickly since bacteria and viruses are all over in the airy stuff in the air (leading experts in Mainstream Science and Authoritarians Say So! PILES OF THEM! AND THERE’S 343,000,000,000,000,000,000 RESULTS ON GOOGLE THAT PRETTY MUCH SAY THE SAME THING!) and hummers are always sticking their tongues in dirty stuff, and uh, so, they might die from bacteria collecting in the non living dish which doesn’t naturally clean itself and which people have to clean, people who are dirty and covered in bacteria that hummers don’t often seem to come into contact with (BUT I’M NOT A MAIN STREAM SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVES IN A 13 BILLION YEAR OLD BIG MAGIC LIFE ORDERING MAKING BOMB I NEVER SAW NOR ABIOGENESIS, NOR MACRO EVOLUTION, SO SHOULD YOU EVEN READ WHAT I’M SAYING? CUZ THAT MAKES ME A KOOK! KOO KOO KOO KOO, I DON’T AGREE WITH THE MAINSTREAMERS! I’M SO STUPID, SUCH A SINNER) blah blah the point is, don’t feedum, cuz it’s not natural. And give up your dogs and cats. Only take care of your own kids, don’t even look at kids that aren’t your own, don’t touch them, don’t take pics of them, and just do what is natural for the non-arrognt humans to do: eat raw veggies and build homes out of dirt, just dig a hole in the ground and live like a fox. Now that’s true humility and caring for the environment. Woah, wait, that might harm worms and displace the mother earth gaya dirt, and might harm bacteria… oh what to do… I know! Lets kill ourselves! No wait, then maggots mite eat our bacteria infested bodies, and that’s not natural. Maybe I’ll just stand still for as long as I can and wish myself out of existance.

One more thing sicky, chistyconniving and jimmyjester: why would a troll post in their first statement a warning about feeding hummingbirds with honey, if they were trying to upset you by convinving everyone to do so, and denying for a malicious reason that it was a problem, and never denying once in their statement that it might be? Why even bring it to your attention with concern they might be doing harm if they WERE trying to upset you more than hummingbirds, and harm hummingbirds? Further, why are you acting like Alicia is denying there are such warnings or are none, when her very first sentence she points one out? Stupid, crazy, libeling, insano, idiot, hypocrite, careless, parrots blind to the utter obvious much? Trolls? You can’t see the first sentence? Progress haters? Fearmongers?


Nectar is rich in vitamins and minerals and is a good substitute for the white-refined sugar. Nectars are produced by plants. They are a good substitute for sugar and rich in essential vitamins and minerals. Since the nectar is derived from nature the diabetic people can easily substitute nectar with sugar as it will never increase the blood sugar due to the presence of glycemic index. The nectar is converted by the bees while they make honey. Nectars have very recently entered the family of edible food stuffs. Unlike the honey the nectars are produced by the flowers. They are preferred by the vegetarians as there is no animal involved in the creation process.


Honey is a well known healthy food and is known for its healing and nutritional qualities. It is a good source of energy and is beneficial for our health. People who have diabetes can consume them without any fear of their blood sugar getting increased. Unlike nectar honey is created by bees who utilize the nectars harvested by them from flowers. They have been a favorite among people for many years. They are however sometimes despised by the vegetarians as there are animal involved.” – vspages

The earliest mention I could find of honey water getting fungus in it, and it was also the earliest seemingly scientific one, was from a “Wildlife review, Dept. of Recreation and Travel Industry,” 1969, Volumes 5-6, of the British Columbia. Dept. of Recreation and Travel Industry, British Columbia. Fish and Wildlife Branch, and an apparent vague reference to it in a letter from a reader to Popular Mechanics in 1970 to it, which apparently then became used as a warning by others into a DO NOT DO THIS warning. So that’s it for the most part, a reference to some super obscure hummingbird study in or before 1969, which canadian jimmyjojo (and christy and sidk by agreeing with him) turned into, “basically 300,000 links that all agree with each other”. That one statement got repeated over and over in various hummingbird books and websites and by other gullible, presumpteous, lazy-minded lookwhaticandoers.

And if that’s not enough evidence for you that this whole honey is murder thing is nearly a mass hallucination, it’s a fact that sugar water can also ferment under heat and sunlight and that depending on the temperature, the feeder would need to be cleaned daily (this is Farenheit, starting ith 71-75):

71-75 = 6 days
76-80 = 5 days
81-84 = 4 days
85-88 = 3 days
89-92 = 32 days
93+ = change daily

Now who, knowing this, is going to say, “but you can’t boil the honey, it’s impervious to boiling, only refined sugar in water can be boiled”?

If you do become of a hummingbird that has been infected by a fungus, either take it to a vet if you can catch it, or consult this book here and try it on your own if you want to.

Categories: trolls, trolls Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two Mainstream Science Geniuses Call Skeptic Mainstreamers “Brainwashed”

November 3, 2011 Leave a comment

The Mind, Physics and a “Breakthrough” Theory of Everything

On the radio show Coast to Coast AM, on the second half of the show today (not the upcoming one today), were two Mainstream Science guests and scientific geniuses. George Noory was the host who interviewed them. Here are the biographies of these two scientists:

Bio on Dr Vernon Neppe

Vernon M . Neppe MD, PhD(Med), FRSSAf, FFPsych(SA), FRCPC, MMed (Psych), DipABPN (Psychiatry; Geriatric Psychiatry; Forensic Psychiatry), DABFM, DABFE, DABPS (Psychopharmacology), FACFE, LMACFE, MB, BCh, DPsM , BA is Director of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute in Seattle, WA, Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO and formerly Director, Division of Neuropsychiatry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dr Neppe has contributed internationally in the specialties of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neurology, Psychopharmacology, Forensic Psychiatry, Anomalistic Psychology and Epileptology. He also is an author, professional speaker, playwright and philosopher. His books on brain medications include Cry the Beloved Mind: A Voyage of Hope and Innovative Psychopharmacotherapy as well as The Psychology of Déjà Vu.

His listings include editions of Americas Top Doctors, Whose Who in the World, Best Doctors in America, Two Thousand Notable American Men, Five Thousand Personalities of the World, Five Hundred Leaders of Influence, Great Minds of the 21 st Century and Americas Top Psychiatrists. He was an International Man of the Year, received a Millennium Medal of Honor, and has recently been honored for his scientific contributions by being possibly the first USA based physician to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of South Africa. He has written more than two hundred publications, and lectured in a dozen countries on four continents and at about 90% of the medical schools in the USA. He was educated in South Africa where he obtained both his primary Medical and PhD degrees, and at Cornell University.

Dr Vernon Neppe founded the PNI in Seattle, WA in late 1992. Dr Neppe also does extensive forensic consultations, and records review but does not do criminal medicolegal work.

Bio on Dr. Edward R. Close PhD, PE

Dr. Close studied physics, math, philosophy, and creative writing at Central Methodist College, receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in Math and Physics in 1963. He spent one year in the graduate physics program at the University of Missouri at Rolla and one year in the environmental engineering PhD program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional studies were completed at UCLA, UC Davis, Case Western Reserve and elsewhere. He completed his thesis and received his PhD in environmental science and engineering in 1988.

The focus of Dr. Close’s work is the integration of science and consciousness studies. As a physicist, his areas of research are relativity and quantum mechanics. Since 1959, his exploration of the physical sciences has been enhanced by the intensive practice of consciousness expansion techniques. A member of several professional organizations, MENSA, the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE) and Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF), he has traveled extensively and taught mathematics, physics, and meditation techniques. He has recently accepted the position of Science Editor for Telicom, the journal of the ISPE.

Edward R. Close, PhD, PE, is a recognized expert in environmental science, has served as environmental advisor to more than fifteen Fortune 500 companies, and has more than forty years experience in the environmental field. He is the author of numerous technical papers and five nonfiction books, including Nature’s MoldRx – The Non-Toxic Solution to Toxic Mold (2007), as well as the DVD: Toxic Mold – A Breakthrough Discovery.

Dr. Close has more than forty years’ experience in environmental planning and management, engineering, hydrology, hydrogeology, and industrial-waste management with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1965-1978, and private consulting firms, 1978-1995. While working as a research hydrologist in the Water Resources Division of the USGS, he was chosen from hundreds of employees, nationwide, to become one of the seven scientists selected to form the first Department of Interior, Systems Analysis Mathematical Modeling Group, where he worked with internationally known environmental mathematicians, including Dr. Nickolas Matalas, Dr. John Bredehoft, and Dr. Benoit Mandelbrot.

In 1995, Dr. Close opened Close Environmental Consultants in Southeast Missouri. He continues to serve clients that range from Fortune 500 companies, mid-size and small local businesses to individual property owners as principal consultant with EJC Enterprises. He has worked in eleven U.S. States, on the island of Puerto Rico, and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Close is a member of numerous professional societies, including the Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA), the National Society of Professional Engineers, the American Water Resources Association, the National Water Well Association, the American Institute of Hydrology, the Cape Area Engineers, MENSA, and the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE). He currently serves as Science Editor for “Telecom,” an ISPE quarterly periodical, is a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Missouri, a Registered Environmental Site Assessor, a Registered Well Installer, and a Registered Professional Hydrologist.

Dr. Close has on-going interests in language, linguistics, symbolic logic, and consciousness studies. One of his books, Transcendental Physics (1997), explores the interface of modern physics and consciousness and has been cited in numerous publications including Dr. David Stewart’s book The Chemistry of Essential Oils Made Simple.


This is the Coast to Coast AM show description (from of the show they were on:

Consciousness & Reality
Date: 11-02-11
Host: George Noory
Guests: Dr. Vernon Neppe, Edward R. Close, Jerome Corsi

Neuropsychiatrist Dr. Vernon Neppe and physicist Dr. Edward Close discussed their work integrating science, mathematics, and philosophy with consciousness studies to arrive at their new paradigm shifting model– “Reality Begins with Consciousness.” Neppe (who appeared in the 2nd & 4th hours) pointed out how every ‘Theory of Everything,’ such as put forth by Einstein and Hawking, has had major failings because they haven’t factored in consciousness into the equation. He described three levels of consciousness– neurological, psychological, and a kind of meta-consciousness which pulls in information from all sources, and “technically would not require a brain…and implies infinity.”

Meta-consciousness suggests that life-after-death is a reality, as consciousness can exist outside the brain, Neppe noted. “In our model, we cogently argue that time is not just one linear dimension that goes past, present, future, but that there are several different dimensions of time,” and all of existence could be said to exist at the same time because “we have an extended amount of time that always is, was, and will exist,” he continued. Dr. Close (appearing in the third hour) commented that scientific views have been limited for many years, and required a more expansive paradigm or framework.

Using mathematics, Close developed his theory of “dimensional extrapolation,” which suggests the existence of additional dimensions– at least 10, which coincides with what has been said in string theory. There are three dimensions of time, three of space, and three of consciousness, and a 10th dimension that is “transfinite,” he detailed. Humans inhabit all of these dimensions, “however there are also other forms of consciousness that inhabit some of the dimensions” that may or may not impinge on what we experience through our physical senses, he explained. “The universe itself is conscious and intelligent and has an innate order to it,” Neppe added.

According to these two scientists, there was nothing that ruled out the existence of God in their Theory of Everything. One of them also said that their science colleagues were afraid to talk about UFOs because they were afraid their reputation might be damaged and would not get the support they wanted or were getting from the University they were in. I don’t remember if these scientists believed in intelligent design or not. They did however believe in UFOs and psychic phenomenon, and said that those scientists who denied such things were real were brainwashed. And if you read their biography, it’s clear that these are not simple idiots but among the top “wise” of the world. One of them is even an expert in psychology, brain medicines, and even on how the brain physically works! So if they are saying Mainstream Scientists are (in general), brainwashed, and you combine that statement with the claims of scientists who believe in Intelligent Design and/or the Bible and ones who are also accomplished ones (and combine that with the former atheist champion Antony Flew‘s statements against atheism); it puts Mainstreamers in a very bad light and is strong evidence that they are not trustworthy with philosophical or religious truths, let alone ones discovered through the classical scientific method of Mainstreamers. <a href="“>Dr. Close published a book this Theory of Everything. I’m not sure why Neppe isn’t included as at least an editor since I thought I heard them say they both worked on this theory, or maybe Neppe just “peer reviewed” it. The show can be heard on Youtube, just click here. It’s sad that it will take seeing God himself and being before the entrance to Hell before some will finally believe in God and his justice, and by that time, there will be no more mercy, no more offer of salvation.

Categories: Mainstream Science Cult, philosophy, Theories of Everything (TOEs) Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link:

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again

April 14, 2011 1 comment

Post link:

More sickening propaganda and greed come from the Mainstream Science Cult news source Sciencedaily:

Loch Fossils Show Life Harnessed Sun and Sex Early on [because the greedy cultists said so]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2011) — Remote lochs along the west coast of Scotland are turning up new evidence about the origins of life on land [because the greedy cultists said so].

A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College [grant money grubbers], who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains [evidence of a 6,500 Earth, not “billions and billions of years old”] of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago [because the greedy cultists said so].

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the —-> leap <—- [weasel word] from tiny, simple bacterial [because the greedy cultists said so, show the evidence, liars] (prokaryote) [oh look they used a “science” word kids and morons, so they must be smart n’ wise n trustworthy, they must know what they’re talking about!, not those dummy wummy fundie Kwistins] cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) [more complex means it must have evolved from less because the greedy cultists said so: it’s logical fallacy to make such a claim] cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible [because the greedy cultists said so]. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land [HUH?! SO THE EARLIER YOU FIND A COMPLEX ORGANISM THE “MORE RIGHTER WE ARE YOU FUNDIES!” HUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!???????????!?!?!?!!? NO SUPER MORON LIARS: THAT’S MORE EVIDENCE THAT BIBLE, GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT, NO YOUR LIE THAT EARLIER = MORE SIMPLE.] The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land [Sure the cultists do. Just like Mormons don’t doubt their religion when their leaders have them shun learning anything outside of their religion that shows it to be false]. – Source

Well, so much for the “skeptics'” claims that ancient bacteria can’t survive after millions of years, let alone a million. This article didn’t even mention how “skeptics” can’t believe or are “skeptical” that it’s possible for life or even DNA to last that long (yes: it is really unlikely if Earth was billions of years old, let alone a million or millions, right, Mainstream Science Cult and supporters?) I wonder why it’s not mentioned? Could it be because it would make Mainstreamers and their Skeptic sect look anti-scientific, because it would kill the excitement of the story, because it would make it look like Skeptics, which many Mainstreamers claim to be, like hinderers of science, or because it might provoke thought outside of the tiny mental box they try to trap everyone in? Because it might get the thoughtless to lift up their blinders and peek at the things in the light, and try to make out what they are seeing clearly? Can’t have that can we cultists? Thinking for yourself is a sin to cultists.

So, let’s get this lesson clear kids and morons: According to the Mainstreamers, the “earlier” a life form existed, the more simple, but if it’s complex [contradiction], the Darwin Cult of Mainstreamers are still right, cuz its just means like got complex suddenly, and the “earlier” a complex form of life is found, the more sudden it happened, and the later a simpler life form is found, it must not have evolved, or come from something simpler, because complex things only get more complex, never simpler, just like this circular reasoning.”

Anti-Christians and Mainstream Science Cult: Please stop teaching kids and morons bad logic, please stop wasting time and money by promoting lies with your time and the money God allows you to have and use. Please, it’s sickening, and inviting pain and death when you keep stealing, provoking, lying and hiding the truth and wrecking lives and wasting everyone’s time.

Categories: creation science, creationism, Mainstream Science Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Massive Nemesis of Stupidity in Nonexistant Oort Cloud Threatens to Destroy Earth’s Science Even Further

December 10, 2010 6 comments

Massive Nemesis of Stupidity in Nonexistant Oort Cloud Threatens to Destroy Earth’s Science Even Further:

Massive dark object ‘lurking on edge of solar system hurling comets at Earth’
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:28 PM on 10th December 2010
Comments (190) Add to My Stories
A massive dark object may be lurking on the edge of our solar system, according to scientists. [What ‘scientists’? Not all scientists despite the implication of this immoral weasel.]

Most comets that fly into the inner solar system seem to come from the outer region of the Oort cloud [seem to who you weasel? So you speak for everyone? Arrogant.]- a region of icy dust and debris left over from the birth of the solar system [it’s an evolutionist theory, not a known real region as you imply].

The cloud starts from a point about 93 billion miles from the Sun and stretches for around three light years and contains billions of comets, most of them small and hidden [so goes the theory, liar. And if most of them are small and hidden, how do you know this cloud exists, or your “scientists” friends? Contradict yourself much Mr. Evolutionist Pretending to Be a Scholarly Scientists and Journalist?].
A Nasa graphic which illustrates how the Oort Cloud surrounds our solar system. [really? It’s from NASA, that company packed full of creationist scientists? No.] Scientists believe [what scientists you weasel? All scientists? No.] that an object with a huge mass may be pushing comets towards Earth from the cloud[.][And? We should believe with these so far unknown scientists, because? Well because you’re talking pretentiously, like you’re king of the world, and mentioned scientists all believing so and so, and you mentioned NASA, the great center of scientific mastery, which is why it still uses rocket technology from the 60’s.]
Now new calculations suggest a large object that is up to four times as big as Jupiter could be responsible for sending them in our direction. [Cool: “Now new calculations”. I’m scared. I’ve now abandoned Christianity and recalculated my life to be atheist and believe in evolution and read dailymail all day long. I’m really productive now!]

The scientists [what scientists? ‘Just have faith’ right?] have analysed the comets in the Oort cloud [you can’t analyse something that hasn’t been found] and deduced that 25 per-cent of them would need a nudge by a body of at least Jupiter size before they changed orbit. [You still haven’t explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet.]

Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire at the University of Louisiana came up with theory said that ‘something smaller than a Jovian mass would not be strong enough to perform the task’. [You still haven’t explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet.]
They believe that our solar system has a hidden ‘companion’ that has so far remained undetected. [You still haven’t explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet, or why I should trust in these people. Oh I know: because you called them astrophysicists. They must be trustworthy..]
The scientists [the what? Repeat that 100 times in a row to brainwash me more.] have been studying the cloud using WISE, Nasa’s infra-red space telescope that is capable of detecting dark objects. [And what did they find?]
Matese said: ‘I think this whole issue will be resolved in the next five to 10 years, [Oh, they found nothing, and yet you speak of them as having found something. You wasted my time and the time of thousands of others.] because there’s surveys coming on line that will dwarf the comet sample we have today. [Because you said so.]

‘Whether these types of asymmetries in the directions that comets are coming from actually do exist or not will definitely be hammered out by those surveys,’ Matese added. [Wait: you mean you don’t know? But this article was about you and other “scientists” knowing.] ‘We anticipate that WISE is going to falsify or verify our conjecture.’ [Wait again: I thought you were already sure and full of evidence for this imaginary cloud. And uh, so why was this invisible planet of faith brought up again? Oh: sensationalism, draw in people to read your article. Liars won’t win in end, nor thieves. ]
About 3,200 long-period comets are known, one of the most famous being Hale-Bopp which was visible to even the naked eye during 1996 and 1997. [But where’s the cloud?]
Halley’s Comet, which reappears about every 75 years, is a ‘short-period’ comet from a different part of the Solar System called the Kuiper Belt.

[…]These occasional comet showers could be why the mass extinctions on Earth are so regular, some scientists believe. [What… is this an allusion to evolution… in an astrophysics article…? No: evolutionists never use propaganda in other fields of science, they never associate things like the Big Bang with evolution and then repeatedly mock Christians by asking them why they “always talking about the Big Bang and evolution as if they have something to do with each other,”… nah: they never do that…]

The research appeared in the online edition of the journal Icarus. [Sounds sciency and cool: must be trustworthy.]
‘Most planetary scientists would not be surprised if the largest undiscovered companion was Neptune-sized or smaller, but a Jupiter-mass object would be a surprise,’ Matese told [And how does this person know that it’s “most scientists” who would not be surprised at this? Did he take a poll? Is there a survey on this somewhere? ]
‘If the conjecture is indeed true, the important implications would relate to how it got there — touching on the early solar environment — and how it might have affected the subsequent distributions of comets and, to a lesser extent, the known planets.’ [“early solar system environment”: How early? Are you trying to bring us back to the Big Bang? Weasel.] – Source

It occurred to me after having finished this post, and then adding the tags for it, that as I typed planet x as part of the keywords, repeatedly, realized this dailymail article and the “scientists” it quotes were trying to cash in on the Planet X scam, something which is discussed on certain radio shows and websites repeatedly, to get more visitors and more money from advertisers.

“Most of them small and hidden” indeed, just like the good deeds of these “scientists”. They are all liars, just as God said.