Archive

Posts Tagged ‘creationism’

A Russian Cryptid? – On Rare Lake Creatures (‘Monsters’, ‘Serpents’, ‘Water Horses’, ‘Beasts’)

October 23, 2019 Leave a comment

Screenshot_2019-10-23-15-25-13

I was curious about a certain lake “monster”, what some might call a sea dinosaur, maybe in ignorance, that supposedly lives in Lake Ouich, as I saw video of what might be it on the show “Strange Evidence”, but there was nearly no info about it, not even mention of the video. But one or more websites mention a Lake Lochy which has an alternate name too. There was interesting info about a sea creature that lived there, mentioned in the 1830s in a book I found through Google’s book archives, I suppose may be a legend hundreds of years old, but reasonably from the the 1800s. I discovered, no surprise to me, that Lake Lochy and other Lochs (lakes in Ireland) that have accounts of large mysterious creatures in them are all connected to Loch Ness. It’s obviously some ecosystem God has preserved for these species of monsters, something to strengthen the faith of Christians and frustrate the faithlessness of skeptics/doubters, atheists, and anti-creationists. The earliest account I could find on a large Lake Lochy creature referred to it as a ‘water horse’. There’s even a modern news article documentimg the find of a government official who found a headless amd tailless skeleton of what might have been this creature, or of some connected loch. My research lead me to a book of news for the year 1859 that mentioned Lake Lochy and other connected ones and then in the next short article, perhaps coincidentally mentions a sighting by a “Captain John Dunn”, who saw an unknown water creature at “59.14 lattitude north” by “59.10 longitude west”, a frustrating way of giving the location as Google did not show any websites that allowed me to find where this was by typing in those numbers, and one website required me to put in the city of the coordinates first (why?! how stupid!). I ended up, perhaps on the same site having to manually move and tap my finger on a tiny map and on my little phone which ended up with the page repeatedly going to some other site due to Android’s stupid programming and the website’s failure to ask if I wanted to leave the page. When I tried to go back to the page and did it would always reset the map location, so then I tried it on my tablet which was a little easier and eventually pinpointed a length of water with a very small width it seemed which almost exactly fit the coordinates. There were no very nearby lakes or even ponds, but some large lake was connected to this stream some miles away, but is in Russian, so, I couldn’t read it in English. If anyone can translate the names of that lake and the cities or towns nearby as shown in the screenshots with this article I’ve written, please do. Please also translate the name of the stream where the creature was sighted, obviously using the comment function here on this webpage.

My guess is that the streams were once much larger, but thar rerouting the water to what appears to be various farms all around it caused it to not just greatly dwindle but move a little so that there is no longer water at the place the creature was seen. The creature or creatures probably resides in the large lake miles away now. If any Russians or tourists have seen unknown creatures in that lake or the streams please leave detailed comments on this article about what you saw, including the time, day, month, year or season of your sighting and if you were drunk or high or your eyes blurry or clear and distance you saw the creature or creatures at.

I’d also appreciate other comments about your personal sightings if any of unknown Russian lake dragons/serpents/dinos/water horses/water dogs or however it looked to you. Perhaps you’ve seen a creature not even mentioned before in history. And if you’ve seen a dinosaur or dragon on land, let readers here know the details and time.

New Ceres Data Defies Big Bang and Evolution Theories, Supports Genesis Creationism

Kenneth Miller’s (of Brown.edu) Evolution Propaganda Fails

December 27, 2011 2 comments

Post link: http://delusional.tk


Evolutionary Biology is very much like the pseudoscience Phrenology

Professor or former Professor Kenneth R. Miller, of Brown University, said, “Though some insist that life as we know it sprang from a Grand Designer’s Original blueprints, Biology offers new evidence that organisms were cobbled together layer upon layer by a timeless tinkerer called evolution.”


An Evolutionary Tree Made by the Fraud Scientist and Evolutionist Ernst Haeckel


A weird coincidence, after posting this article on the 27th,
and then this morning looking for evolution trees, found
this circular version, but then looking to the right noticed
a smaller version, placed against this phrenology looking ad!


Here’s yet another evolution tree I found before the one on New Scientist,
and is in conflict with the others. Interesting to note that this comes from
the nih.gov website (a US government website), and that on the page it is
described as a “Phylogeny showing evolutionary relationships”.
Very strange how much that sounds like phrenology!

Question: why do evolutionists keep resorting to flowery speech and poetry? Can they talk plainly and straight for once instead of like narcissist goof balls? That evolutionists keep talking like that is a clue that many narcissists take to this stupid theory, the reason being that it frees man from having to be responsible to God and makes out man to be the Intelligent One for revealing and understanding evolution (which is a weak way of trying to come close to being the Designer) and opens up the possibility for man to be a Creator himself by genetic engineering and finding out how to create life (which evolutionists imagine they will one day learn, because they tie in evolution to how life was created yet hypocritically accuse creationists as being the only ones who do that).

Second question: Why is Kenneth likening evolution to being a designer? Evolution isn’t a designer of anything, it’s a natural process according to the definition, just like the wind and space dust eroding a rock away. The wind and space dust aren’t designing anything by eroding away a rock.

Third question: what evidence? Kenneth like all other evolutionists are all talk and no substance. On the page from which I got those quotes is NO EVIDENCE. Rather, it’s THEIR DELUSIONS, their day dreaming:

“But evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures, if we can imagine a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simplex to the complex.”

Yes, just imagine it people, and look at a few pictures of made up steps or watch a cartoon of dinosaurs running around on the Discovery or History Channel, or pictures of an angry T-Rex eating meat in Discover Magazine or Scientific American, which never stop preaching Darwinism or Evolution. Talk about “all you say God all the time:” Shut up yourself with your 100% faith-based materialistic preaching. The evidence for evolution is chanting, dreams, poetry, cartoons, coloring books and liberal dandy’s playing dress-up in movies. I have no problem with hypothesizing, with imagining how something might be possible, but if there is no evidence to support it, and there is none to support evolution theory hypothesis, then it’s not something you can truthfully teach as being factual or proven or evident, especially if there’s evidence against it, and there is plenty, easily found, on my journal, throughout the Internet, books in libraries all over the world, and from what can be observed of nature.

Keep your cult out of God’s universe and shut up with that stupid vain “keep your religion out of my science” line. It’s “my twisted reality disguised as science so that I don’t have to admit responsibility for my actions and how completely not good I am” that should be used in place of “science.” May I ignore you evolutionists now, or are you going to break “your” logical fallacy lists again and leave me a comment appealing to emotion, ad hominem, mere rhetoric, or concluding before examining the evidence, like this one which commits all four fallacies at once: “You idiot. You know evolution is right and creation wrong, right?” Or how about begging the question: “Just look at this website right here about how bacteria learned to eat citrus fruits which it could never do before.” And your point is? It would have to be: therefore God wasn’t needed to make the universe, life, lightning and mud can come to life, and mud can turn into men. If we can just imagine it, just have faith, it will be true, and the Christians will finally disappear. Just name it, and claim it.

Update 12/30/2011: A blog I found while looking for evolutionary tree pictures. Notice the description of the blogger here, “Callan draws cartoons.” Third story on the blog of this geology teacher: “19 December 2011Video book review: cartoon books”. Can you smell the science? I checked out Alexa (an unreliable site for statistics on websites when if they have a small amount of traffic) and saw that it says mostly 65 year olds and older with no kids go to this website mostly from some location at school. Can anyone say, “Old evolutionists stuck in their ways”?

Related Information:

Unique Fungal RNA Splicing Mechanism Strikes a Blow Against Darwinian Evolution

Is Intelligent Design Compatible With Darwinian Evolution Theory?

On 6/20/2010 on Coast to Coast AM, radio show host George Noory interviewed “Dr. Bernard Haisch” who the C2C AM website describes as “an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.” George almost right away brought up Stephen Hawking asking what was going on with him, and Bernie made it seem as if Hawking had had a change of mind after having written a book (his latest) called The Grand Design and might believe in an intelligent designer who designed the universe, saying that it seemed to Hawking that the laws of the universe were “finely tuned” (designed) for life (an old evidence for God or someone or someones like him having created the universe), but actually Hawking hadn’t changed his mind since writing his book, and was simply stating what seemed true to him, yet is in denial about it as his book The Grand Design shows. Bernie then said that he believed that humans had been created with a purpose and that’s “It’s more likely that the universe is a finely tuned place for life.” Bernie also brought up how astrophysicist George Ellis said that “life would not be possible if there were very small changes”. What Ellis said actually said was, “What is clear is that life, as we know it, would not be possible if there were very small changes to either physics or the expanding universe that we see around us.

However he said that he believed we were created through evolution, and “to learn” and that God didn’t create us in the way the Bible says and doesn’t “interfere” , because that would be “like [the] Santa Claus [story being true]” He also said that “the purpose behind all this is for God to evolve himself”. He said that he went to the “Latin school of Indianapolis” and to a Catholic seminary for one semester in an attempt to become a (Catholic) priest. He also posed the question “was the universe was made in a way that was conducive for life” and answered himself, saying “yes it was.”

Bernie’s misdescribes what it is when God acts within the universe, calling it “interference”. Why so? When a human does something is it automatically “interference”? Obviously not. Further, he compares the claim that God directly created humans instantly as being like the Santa Clause story, but does not explain why, or how such a comparison is evidence against the Genesis record. Further, his claim that God acting within the universe would go against “us” (humans) learning anything is without evidence. He doesn’t explain how that would prevent us from learning anything. And it goes against common sense: why if God gave us information would that PREVENT any human from learning anything? It would be just the opposite: they would learn about God (some way in which he does or can communicate) and learn the information he gave them if he allowed them to understand what he said. Also, why if God was able to create the laws of the universe (which is nothing simple, and which no creature has apparently mastered, not even aliens being that they can crash and die, must travel in vehicles to get to Earth and use created tools to examine us further than what they can learn simply by their senses), why if God could do that, and create a universe itself, would he NOT be able to see the future perfectly as the Bible claims, or alter it in anyway without preventing us or himself from learning or evolving as Bernie implied? Why would God NOT learn anything by altering what he made? Would God NOT learn something he spoke to a human or any of his creatures and observed how they reacted? I also noticed that part of Bernie’s illogical beliefs about reality was due to his belief in randomness, a thing which doesn’t exist being that everything, as he himself acknolwedges, goes by finely tuned laws, and that there is a purpose behind everything, not a “random non-purposed experimental universe by a God who failed at his experiment”. So, he contradicted himself. And because of his belief in randomness (a thing which allows for things to happen for no logical reason, apart from the laws of the universe and therefore unable to be purposed/directed), he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Bernie also believes in the “Big Bang”, a thing which has much evidence against it.

After, George said to Bernie that he didn’t believe that God sent floods and Bernie agreed saying that there were verses in the Bible that were “simply awful” like a verse in Deuteronomy in which if a man discovered his bride wasn’t a virgin, that he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep, and saying that that was man’s evil projection onto God, and so revealing his ignorance about God’s authority, the symbolism in the Bible and his laws, and projecting his evil mind onto God’s, which is obviously a hypocritical thing and which contradicts his self-righteous “spirituality” which he said he had on the show. George asked Bernie if he believed that there was a purpose behind everything, and Bernie said that he believed there was. Bernie then said he believed we had spirits that continued to exist after we died.

After that, but not immediately after, George allowed a caller to correct him and Bernie, but they both rejected the correction. Among other things the caller said that there was no evidence for evolution, and said that the claim that God loving everyone would prevent him from harming anyone was false. George challenged the caller a little asking illogically how God could flood the world (and be loving), which is nonseniscal because the caller didn’t say that God WOULDN’T do that, but was saying the opposite of that, and that probably confused the caller a little, because the caller made the mistake of at first denying that God directly caused the flood, but then said it was necessary to get rid of the corruption in the world, the corrupt people being like a poisoned leg that needed to be removed lest the whole body dies. The caller also believed wrongly that the “Nephilim” were all evil (which he implied were of the corrupt people that needed to be killed), which isn’t something you can know being that that word means “giants” and is debatable as to whether or not it also means “bully” which is another way it can be used. When the caller met George’s challenge George seemed a littled annoyed, and Bernie failed to refute the caller, and in part of Bernie’s reply to the caller, claimed that he was wrong to say that there was no evidence for evolution and that it was “well laid out”, even though the caller made it clear that he was talking about two different types of evolution: micro evolution and macro, but again, Bernie ignored that and simply said “evolution”, ignoring the two types, and so committed the logical fallacy of bait and switch (equating two things which are not equal).

It’s also notable that George is a Catholic and pro-Catholic and anti-fundamentalist Christian, yet by denying “awful” verses in the Bible is committing heresy against Catholicism, and he’s been doing this for many years, in the ears of many millions of people, including Catholics, and yet his Pope has not excommunicated George for this nor rebuked him for it. So, George is a hypocrite, and it is strong evidence that Catholics are poorly unified. Unity is supposedly one of the evidences that Catholicism is the true religion according to various Catholics, including the Popes who has lead them. On about June 6th I had been in a Catholic church and observed Catholics doing mass for the first time, and the priest gave a sermon, and in it said that Catholics had a problem with unity, so, at least one Catholic of standing is in agreement with me (but he didn’t know that that is what I believed).

For those who might argue, “Evolutionists who say that evolution is random don’t understand what they are talking about since evolution really isn’t random but follows the laws of the universe. So really there is no problem with evolution science it’s just one of the laws of the universe.” Still, such a statement doesn’t give any evidence that molecules can by the laws of the universe turn into living things, like the simplist living thing to humans or aliens as intelligent as or more intelligent than humans. And for those who simply argue that it’s a myth that evolution is random, like Cameron McPherson Smith and Charles Sullivan, two evolutionists, they give no evidence for this being a myth, but use this stupid time-wasting insulting argument: “But we know that a glance at a flower or moose or meadow isn’t enough to appreciate all of nature, just as a glance at a book isn’t enough to appreciate a whole story. A glance at a living thing sees the here and now, but is blind to the billions of years of life recorded in the fossil record,” as if anyone has been around to see billions of years go by. And from the rant I took that quote from, they don’t say why it’s a myth, but end their insultingly stupid time-wasting rant with, “Both supporters and critics of evolution use the same phrase–“evolution is random”–to support their claims. To really understand the phrase we need to distinguish between how it’s used to support these opposing viewpoints.” I wish I could punch them for deceiving me into reading their Internet pollution, their misleading search engine dung. Why did these idiots claim that “evolution is random” is a myth and why do they claim to be scientific and scientists and yet use non-scientific ranting like that? It’s digusting and sickening to me. And that I still take a chance and read supposed “why creationist is wrong and evolution is right” evidence refutes the moron evolutionists who claim I ignore the evidence and don’t listen and am deluded and close-minded etc. No morons: I have read your “evidence” very carefully as the many articles in my journal and elsewhere shows, and everytime I take a chance to read some new evidence, it turns out to be a disgustingly time-wasting rant or dumb false cult-minded claims, not evidence. And I think that that is the last time I am going to use my time to read anymore supposed evidence for evolution. I am utterly sickened by being told such and such is evidence for evolution and against creationism, only to read an illogical claim. I see now it’s all a shell game and time-wasting game and show-off “look at me and what I feel” game and spam the net to force it down the throats of non-liberals game. Doesn’t the world refer to people who do this as “trolls”? And yet the world calls true Christians “trolls” in their hypocrisy instead. That is what is truly “hypocrisy” and “blind”.

For those who don’t believe in an intelligently designed universe, or designed laws at least, and yet claim that evolution is not random – they are confused or being contentious, because IF THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WERE NOT DESIGNED, THEN THEY WERE WITHOUT PURPOSE AND LAWS DON’T CREATE THEMSELVES, therefore they would have to be produced by the opposite of something with a purpose, a RANDOM act, and randomness is WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE. Purpose is only something a thing with a mind would have, not a law that came into existence by randomness. And for those who would argue that it’s more likely then that the laws that produced the universe were always in existence or that the universe and the laws of it always existed, then a Creator: such people have no evidence for that claim, it’s just their ignorant opinion, even if they call it a fact.

God didn’t use man-to-molecules evolution because it is a pointless process: God taught man both directly and indirectly what right from wrong was within a few days, and gave further insight over thousands of years to learn about it. To spend billions of years waiting to teach HUMANS that is nonsensical, since humans didn’t exist for billions of years in Darwinian Evolution Theory, but only for at the most, hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe a few million, and so God would have waited billions of years just to say, “It’s wrong to disobey me”. Bernie’s version of learning right from wrong is also nonsensical, since if God doesn’t teach what right from wrong is, then no one would ever learn what it was, since right and wrong would never be known: Darwinian Evolution Theory has nothing to do with right from wrong and there is no evidence that it would cause any living things to think, “This is good and this is bad” or “This is the right way to do something and this is the wrong way”. DE Theory is an UNINTELLIGENT MINDLESS supposed law, but mindless doesn’t produce minds. Further, there is no evidence for Bernie’s claim that we’re all here to learn and then go on as spirits. Yet Bernie insists that his belief is true without evidence, like a cultist would do, an idiot.

People like Bernie who have the contradictory belief that there is such thing as randomness and simultaneously unchangeable laws are confused and say contradictory things.

Related Information:

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link: www.gaydna.tk

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi-Tech Eye Design in a Lowly Mollusk

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
5/6/2011

Human eyes are well-designed to see objects using light transmitted through air, but not through water, because light travels at a different speed through the two media. However, intertidal-dwelling marine mollusks called chitons can see equally well in both environments. How did they acquire this unusual ability?

Chitons scour intertidal rocks for algae meals. Eight integrated shell-plates cover their backs, and a muscular foot allows them to cling with surprising strength to the rocks they traverse. A recent study explored their unique dual-mode eye design. How do they see in both air and water without switching out eye lenses, and is this an “adaptation,” as suggested in a summary in ScienceNOW?1

Researchers publishing in Current Biology tested chiton eye lenses and discovered they were the first ever known to be made of the hard mineral aragonite.2 Chiton shells are also made primarily of aragonite, but the use of this material in an eye lens turns out to be an elegant solution to the problem of forming quality images in either air or water.

“The mineral bends the incoming rays in two directions and creates a double image,” according to ScienceNOW.1 The researchers suspect that the chiton capitalizes on the two angles, or “refractive indices,” of transmitted light to form an image in either environment. The study authors wrote, “We propose that one of the two refractive indices of the birefringent chiton lens places a focused image on the retina in air, whereas the other does so in water.”2 The use of aragonite for a lens material could potentially be copied by optical engineers for many applications.

“The adaptation makes sense, as chitons live in intertidal zones and spend time above and below the water line,” ScienceNOW reported.1 But who is to say that the chiton eye was the result of random “adaptation” and not intentional design?

Chiton eye specifications include the thickness, size, and placement of aragonite lenses on the chiton’s shell—coordinated with internal light-detecting soft tissues like membranes and specified proteins. All these are needed just to detect a raw light signal. Therefore, these eyes have such incredibly ingenious engineering that the burden of proof lies with the one who insists that chiton eye specifications are natural “adaptations” rather than intelligently specified designs. – More here

Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again

April 14, 2011 1 comment

Post link: http://lochfossils.tk

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Every known system degenerates. Metal rusts, food rots, and flowers wither. Even something as large as the universe will eventually run down. How much usable and still-ordered energy remains in the universe?

Australian researchers have generated a new estimate, one that includes the energy-destroying effects of “supermassive black holes.” Their computations indicate that the universe is perhaps 30 times more run down than similar estimates published just last year.

After adding in “the contributions of black holes 100 times larger than those considered in previous budgets,” co-authors Chas Egan and Charles Lineweaver reported in the Astrophysical Journal that the universe is at least an order of magnitude more run down than secular astronomers once thought.1

The largest contributor by far to universal entropy (a measure of usable energy) is generated by supermassive black holes, according to the published study. Evidence of these, as well as the smaller “stellar” black holes, has been found mostly in galactic cores. Black holes rapidly randomize ordered forms of energy and matter, turning them into heat that then dissipates.

Though some of the assumptions used in the Egan and Lineweaver study rely on aspects of Big Bang cosmology, a large portion of the computed entropy was derived from temperature and volume measurements or estimates. A host of other observations has demolished the Big Bang theory,2 but the very fact that the universe is slowing down is both counter to evolutionary assumptions and supportive of biblical creation.

Lineweaver said in an Australian National University press release, “Contrary to common opinion, the maintenance of all the complicated structures we see around us―galaxies, stars, hurricanes and kangaroos―have the net effect of increasing the disorder and entropy of the universe.”3 The longstanding scientific observation of continually decreasing order in all systems contradicts the evolutionary doctrine that order has spontaneously increased.4 But evolution’s simple-to-complex story has been so uncritically accepted that it isn’t surprising that the science of entropy, which calls that story into question, is not as well known.

Since the universe is currently unwinding through natural processes, it stands to reason that at some point it was intentionally “wound up” by something outside of the universe. This corresponds well with the Bible’s assertion that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”5

In fact, the culmination of the heavens wearing down was mentioned in the book of Isaiah, to whom God said, “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.”6

Egan and Lineweaver suggested that future research could use their new numbers to recalculate how much time the universe has left. But failing to consider revelation from the God of creation must lead to confusion over the ultimate questions of origin and destiny. Whereas evolutionary scientists can be sure that the universe is running down—though unsure about when it started or how it will end—God states that “all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll,”7 “and the stars shall fall from heaven,”8 so that He can establish “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”9 This present universal economy will be supernaturally restructured long before it fizzles out.

References

1. Egan, C. A., and C. H. Lineweaver. A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal. 710 (2): 1825-1834.
2. Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).
3. Astronomers: The end is nigher than we expected. Australian National University press release, January 25, 2010.
4. Morris, H. 1985. Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? Acts & Facts. 14 (3).
5. Genesis 1:1.
6. Isaiah 51:6.
7. Isaiah 34:4.
8. Matthew 24:29.
9. 2 Peter 3:13.

Source.

Foam Frog Fortress Is Not Natural

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Recipe for Frog Foam Is Quite Unnatural

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
2/10/2010

Some frogs build nests to hold their eggs by whipping up a kind of floating foam. A recent study discovered that the proper frothy architecture is only achieved by following precise construction parameters. How did the frogs acquire such a sophisticated building technique?

Tungara frogs, native to Central and South America, have to build their nests just right in order to preserve the next generation. Researchers caught the process on camera and were able to discern that “the nesting process is sophisticated.”1 They discovered many interesting specifications that the nest must meet, as well as how these frogs meet them. The nests appear to be part of an irreducibly complex system, meaning that if even one aspect of the nest building procedure is removed, the whole system collapses.

The failure of the nests would spell the end of these frogs. This means that from their beginning, Tungara frogs must have possessed all of the necessary habits and materials for their peculiar nesting recipe.

In their study published in the Royal Society’s journal Biology Letters, co-authors Laura Dalgetty and Malcolm Kennedy outlined the “particular biophysical challenges” that these frogs have to overcome to construct their floating foam fortresses.1 They must first be able to manufacture the right kind of foam, which is trickier than it may at first appear. The foam needs the correct protein material, which the female secretes. While sitting on her back, the male uses his hind feet to mix the secretion with water and “then increasingly with air.” If he doesn’t do it correctly, this “would result in rapid dilution of the surfactant proteins required to create foam,”1 and no nest at all would result. These surfactants are necessary to reduce the water’s surface tension. – More here.

A Scientific Analysis of ‘Primordial Soup Abiogenesis’ Theory Vindicates Creation Research

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Critique of ‘Primordial Soup’ Vindicates Creation Research

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
2/11/2010

Where, when, and how did life arise on earth? These questions have intrigued mankind for centuries. Evolutionary theorists have tried to answer them, but without definitive success. And now even their prized “primordial soup” recipe has failed them. Where can they turn next?

In the 19th century, French chemist Louis Pasteur conducted repeatable experiments that demonstrated the impossibility of life arising spontaneously from non-life.1 Although he is widely credited with disproving “spontaneous generation,” some theorists simply added imaginary long spans of time to that general idea and re-branded it “chemical evolution.” This holds that life on earth started in a “primordial soup” of chemicals and then evolved over millions of years into the life forms observed today.

Evolutionary biologists A. I. Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane popularized the chemical evolution theory in the 1920s. By 1993, however, it had been plagued by “decades of persistent failure to create life by the ‘spark in the soup’ method.”2 And a new report has finally faced the fact that chemicals do not evolve in soup.

The new study appears in the journal BioEssays and summarizes solid reasons “why that old and familiar view won’t work at all.”3 Interestingly, many of those same arguments have been presented by creation scientists for decades, but were met at the time with disdain and scorn from the scientific community.

The belief that life arose solely through natural processes is not based on scientific observation, but on the atheistic logic of naturalism. It stands to reason that since humans are here, then “those who deny the Creator’s existence must believe [spontaneous generation] happened once upon a time.”4 Science clearly points to a supernatural cause for life, but the atheistic worldview denies the supernatural. So, no matter how unscientific the primordial soup hypothesis was proved to be, it remained a prominent fixture in public school biology textbooks because it fit a particular preconception—and because evolutionary theory didn’t have anything better to offer.

Nick Lane, lead author of the study refuting the “soup” theory, said in a press release that it suffers from “bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings.”3 Bioenergetics deals with energy management that is vital to living cells. This involves production of ATP, the molecule that fuels cells.5 The researchers’ summary shows that not only are scientists still waiting to discover a way to generate ATP in a primordial soup mixture, but that they have also discovered that there are no soup recipes left to try.

In the authors’ words, soup “has no capacity for energy coupling” because ATP production requires protons to be densely packed and separated out.6 What actually happens in a soup is the exact opposite―protons rapidly disperse. The late, preeminent creation scientist A. E. Wilder-Smith made this thermodynamic deal-breaker clear back in 1970:

Thus, long time spans would not only give more time for the “lucky” synthetic reaction to evolve, they would also give more time for the “unlucky” (and often more probable) decomposition reaction to occur, away from life, back to non-life!7

So, why is it that soup-denying scientific observations―which creation advocates have been pointing to for so long, like the instability of RNA in soup, and the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen―are now permitted a voice in an evolutionary journal?

It is because Lane and his colleagues were able to suggest another purely naturalistic possibility. Instead of primordial soup, they presented “the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.”3

However, experiments are already showing that deep-sea vents are just as unlikely to be “special” enough to produce the material or information required for an even minimally functional cell.8 Even if “primordial soup” gets replaced with a “primordial vent,” science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming about in the absence of a living Creator falls short of reality.

Why have scientific critiques coming from those who suggest God as an alternative source for life not been published in the standard scientific journals? As demonstrated by this new study, it is not due to the quality of the science, but to how well the proposed alternative fits into the particular belief system of the scientific elite. Censorship never leads to good science.

References

  1. Dao, C. Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur. Acts & Facts. 37 (11): 8.
  2. Milner, R. 1993. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s search for its origins. New York: Henry Holt, 274.
  3. New Research Rejects 80-year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life. Wiley-Blackwell press release, February 2, 2010.
  4. Rosevear, D. 1999. The Myth of Chemical Evolution. Acts & Facts. 28 (6).
  5. Thomas, B. 2009. ATP synthase: Majestic molecular machine made by a Mastermind. Creation. 31 (4): 21-23.
  6. Lane, N., J. F. Allen, and W. Martin. How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life. BioEssays. Wiley-Blackwell. Published online in advance of print January 27, 2010.
  7. Wilder-Smith, A. E. 1970. The Creation of Life: a cybernetic approach to evolution. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, xxi.
  8. Thomas, B. Cell Origin Research Is in Hot Water. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 13, 2010, accessed February 4, 2010.

Source.

Related information: Science Debunks Evoltuion, by Tom Phillips

From a Judaic: One reason why I know there is a God active in our world

NEWS ALERT: ON 3-27-2011 A LANDMARK SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY WAS MADE AND THERE IS A MAJOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLACKOUT ON IT: BACTERIA EXPERIMENTS SHOW DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE FALSE.

Living Quantum Mechanical Biological Machines

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Algae Molecule Masters Quantum Mechanics

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
2/17/2010

/

The weird world of quantum physics appears to have been mastered by protein molecules, according to a new study. Researchers have demonstrated that certain proteins can manipulate light waves to their advantage. These kinds of observations are a conundrum for evolution, which can’t explain such advanced biological capabilities.

Quantum mechanics represents mankind’s current approximation of the behavior of matter on the atomic and subatomic level. Experiments have shown that light, as well as electrons, can travel along two wave-like paths at the same time and yet arrive at the same place. In quantum-speak, these paths are said to exist in “coherence.”

Scientists have measured the control of light in coherence by a protein that is involved in photosynthesis. Certain proteins with molecular “antennae” are structured to capture and transfer light energy. When combined with a host of nearby―as well as faraway―protein machines, they use this energy to build the chemicals on which all other living things depend.

But remarkably, one particular type of algae is able to perform this function in low lighting. Most other plants shut down photosynthesis for the night, while “cryptophytes” continue to harvest light. According to a paper published in Nature, researchers discovered that the light-harvesting proteins used by the algae are structured differently from those of other plants and that their particular configuration can pick up low-light energy and hold it in coherence. They called these plants “coherently wired.”1

In order for these algae to harvest light in low-light conditions, their method of photosynthesis must be much more efficient than that of other plants. The “coherent” wiring of this protein enables “quantum effects [to] facilitate the efficient light-harvesting by cryptophyte algae.”1 The ingenious configuration that allows this protein to manipulate light adds to the list of similar finds that have been controversial because of their stunningly skillful construction. – More here.

Imaginary Ancient Big Bomb Believer Bigot Jim Villanuci and Darwinist Friends Refuted

August 28, 2009 Leave a comment

According to the KKOB radio show host Jim Villanuci, who said repeatedly today that he doesn’t care [about the truth], there are no Christian scientists who believe in a “young” earth (6500 is old young?), and anyone who believes in a young earth can’t perform science at all and can’t understand anything correctly because they don’t listen to the facts, and merely explain everything with, “Jesus did it,” or “angels did it”. Is that why I’m repeating what you said and refuting it, again?

Where bigot, in this refutation of your ranting, and your ranting anti-Christian callers, have I said anything like that or an earlier one refuting your claim that we must have sex with a person to know if they are gay or straight?

Do you have the patience to read less than a few pages, if not, how can you claim to know what you are talking about when it comes to “young earthers” let alone Christians, science, evolution or the big imaginary bomb no one ever saw from billions and billions of years ago?):

Christians are scientists too, and not merely because I said so. You don’t you know history and don’t care to know it, and don’t know what’s going on around you accurately either, and don’t want to, that is why in large part you are ignorant. Don’t you know that Galileo, Copernicus and Euler were all Christians, and that atheists tried to shut them up using other Christians? No doubt, you being an ignorant mocker, if I hadn’t added that last part you would have said, “Yeah and look what the Christians did to them.” In addition to that Catholics are false Christians, so big surprise they would turn on their own at the request of atheists. Further, there are two recent polls that show about half of all scientists are religious as in believing in the supernatural, and CHEMISTS especially believe in God (gee can you figure out why CHEMISTS would especially believe in God? Could it be because they not only see the macro design in the universe, but also see the micro design which you stupidly ignore?)

Yet you pretend their are no young earth Christian scientists let alone religious ones, and that we all say, “Jesus did it,” or “It looks young” or stupid things like that, which idiots like you actually say with, “But Darwin said so,” “It evolved,” “Oil is old,” “Fission wouldn’t work.” You google “Evidence against young earth” or “creationism” and believe whatever so called scientific evidence there is against it. What a simpleton. Study Jim, don’t just have faith.

Ironically, it’s by your bigoted sarcastic statements like, “Jesus did it,” or “The Grand Canyon looks young to me,” and, “Evolution did it,”, “The Big Bang did it”, “Dinosaurs died a long time ago and did it”, “The Hubble saw it,” which shows that you are the one who reasons be feelings. It’s you who don’t believe in science and you who don’t know what science is. Science is not, “It looks old to me so it must be old,” or “Darwin did it” (to use your stupid bigoted sarcasm) or “evolution did it.” Further, how in the Hell genius, would you figure out the Grand Canyon is very old let alone old from just looking at it? What the Hell? Can you explain that bizarre reasoning? No, you were brainwashed with endless propaganda that you in your gullibility bought into. You were repeatedly taught “this is clearly old” and so you think that way. Further, what the Hell scientist even says you can judge that a rock is old just be looking at it? Stupid. And can you show that any young earth CALVINIST (not some idiot Christian, a false one) doesn’t believe in science? The father of microbiology was a Calvinist “young earther” you parrot.

You clearly don’t understand what Young Earth geology is about, it’s not simply, “The Earth is about 6000 years old” (it’s a little older than that actually) and it’s not about “Jesus lived with the dinosaurs”.

You also don’t understand nuclear power. Also the two caller that said it’s a matter of faith and non-reason made no sense, unless he meant that old earth geology is non-reason, which would only be figurative. Regardless it was poorly worded and sounded stupid. The woman who mentioned the Christian that said it’s just a faith issue was talking about a stupid Christian then, further she herself was ignorant and stupid since she said that young earther’s explanation about why carbon dating isn’t accurate is complicated, because IT’S NOT complicated, it this simple: Carbon dating has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. It’s also got nothing to do with nuclear power, you obviously don’t know physics very well. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 5000 years, when it’s used to measure things beyond that it’s wildy inaccurate and what Darwinists / evolutionist SCIENTISTS do is arbitrarily choose the dates that match their dating theories. If it doesn’t fit, they dismiss it or won’t even mention it.

Also the Hubble has not revealed the universe to be billions of years old, again it has to do with how the data is interpreted, and Darwinist / evolutionist scientist interpret in such a way that it fits evolutionary theory, it’s circular reasoning.

Further, you clearly don’t know much about evolution even, since you would have known that every informed “young earther” knows to reject carbon dating for the reasons I stated, if you were knowledgeable, you would have referred to other radiometric dating methods (which have also been shown to be inaccurate).

As for Wikipedia being good, no it’s not at all, you think it’s good because it says things that match your uniformed beliefs. What they do is repeatedly and instantly ban “young earthers” not listening to their arguments and merely stating that websites like answersingenesis.org and other young earth sites are not reliable. They also are against TRUTH. Yes, you heard it right, THEY ARE NOT FOR TRUTH. They will literally tell people like me, when I use a logical argument that Wikipedia is NOT ABOUT TRUTH but rather references. And they will ban you for trying to speak the truths IF it cuts the foundation of atheism or doubt of Christianity. They don’t just ban anyone for speaking a religious truth obviously, but that which would leave atheism and anti-Christian skepticism hanging in the wind with nothing to support it. They also obviously wouldn’t want themselves to have been shown to have been gullible for over 100 years, as that would be a devastating blow to their own faith, and then where would they turn? They’d have to be agnostic or witches.

Further, no true Christian simply says, “God said it so I believe it” as anti-Christians love to say. We don’t think that way, in fact the Bible commands us to have evidence for our beliefs, and says not to be a simpleton, there is a verse that literally says not to be that way, and not to simply believe whatever you hear. It also says to test those who claim to be Christians to see if they are telling the truth about being a Christian.

On top of that, there are many non-Christian physicists who are opposed to the teaching of the Big Bang AND ASTRONOMERS, and some are nominal Christians, simply believing the Bible to be true to a degree. There is not a consensus, and even if there was, you can’t vote something to be true or feel it into being true, so your comment “you can believe whatever you want to make yourself feel good” and about you living in reality and not us, is something which applies to you. Further, I study issues regarding truth and reality as do all Christians, but I spend my life doing so, so if anyone is going to know what is real or not and what truth is it would be me, not you, who merely talks about politics all day and avoids getting deep into philosophical and religious matters. Sure you mention religion now and then and how people should be free to have their own religion, but you don’t go much further than that, you don’t get into critical analysis for the basis of religion beyond you belief that Christians merely feel he exists (no that’s not all there is to it).

As for how oiled formed, all you did was read a statement claiming how oil was made, you didn’t give any scientific evidence for it. Also, it’s been a long time that that theory has been shown to be BASELESS. So you just read a statement that is based on a theory that was shown to be in dispute for many years. That shows how out of touch you are with modern scientific findings let alone old ones, including old ones that are still true which you are clueless about.

Now, if you want data, scientific data backing up what I said, and about their being no evidence for the Big Bang and no consensus:

No consensus, Darwinists ban and libel young earth creationists AND Intelligent Design OLD earth creationists (showing how intolerant they are and arbitrary and that it’s about their hate for God, not “pseudoscience” as they pretend)

1) Ben Stein’s: Expelled (which shows that Darwinists ban scientists to make it look like there is a consensus against Darwinism)
2) http://s8int.com/bigbang3.html
3) http://cosmologystatement.org
4) http://s8int.com/bigbang5.html
4) http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm
5) http://sn.im/archeology (don’t you love how this book shows your “scientists” cover up geological and archeological findings in the name of science and for prestige and more money?)
6) Further, there were many “young earth” scientists
and there still are, and the first ones were the human basis
for modern science (now twisted by evolutionists):

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

Clearly these are not scientists/Christians who say, “Jesus made the oil the end.”

Oil wasn’t made millions of years ago or by dinosaurs:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
2) http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/08/23/australian-oil-its-quite-young

Starlight doesn’t show the universe is billions or millions of years old:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/star-formation-and-creation
2) http://icr.org/articles/view/214/245

The distance of objects in space has been in dispute for many years Jim. But you Jim, were gullible, you were deliberately ignorant even though you KNEW there is mass propaganda of all kinds. You imply “young earth” creationism is mass propaganda (why else would you say it scares you?) yet it never occurred to you that Darwinists were lying in any way, not even for money? So who’s the stupid gullible simpleton? Hint for you skeptic Jim: Don’t skeptics (who are nearly all Darwinists) always whine about how there can’t be aliens here from other planets because the distance they would have to travel requires an “insane” amount of energy? Hint hint Jim, aliens are clearly still coming and are sighted all the time. Can you take the hint? MAYBE THE STARS AND GALAXIES AREN’T BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY AS DARWINISTS CLAIM? Super duh? Ultra duh? Massive duh? Big circular reasoning duh? Circular reasoning check Jim: “The stars must be billions of years old because they are billions of light years away, and they are billions of lights away, and they are billions of light years away because scientists said so, and there are no ‘young earthers’ scientists who say the opposite because I Jim said so, and I’m right because scientists said so, and scientists are right because I said so.” Is that science Jim? That’s your science Jim, not the science of true Christians.

There was no billions of years old big bomb that no one ever saw and never will that they just must believe in to be real scientists, cuz you anti-Christians said so:

1) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm
2) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/090807_sjc.htm
3) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/big-bang
4) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/billion-problems-with-big-bang
5) http://creation.com/no-dark-matter-found-in-the-milky-way-galaxy
6) http://orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-1.pdf
7) The Cult of the Big Bang
8) http://spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm (is this physicist “insane” Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
9) http://orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.htm (is this physicist “insane” too Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
10) http://physorg.com/news85310822.html (is physorg.com a creationist website Jim?)
11) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26666 (is physicsworld.com a creationist website Jim?)
12) http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085830.htm (is sciencedaily a creationist website Jim?)
13) http://astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8435 (is astronomy.com a creationist website Jim?)
14) And what were you saying about Hubble Jim, as if you understood his scientific teachings or knew them? Was he and Einstein “dumb nuts” and “young earthers” too Jim?

Yet the true “dumb nuts” like you continue to claim INVISIBLE MATTER is everywhere and is evidence of the Big Bang. WHAT DARK MATTER JIM? OUR DARWINIST SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING IT’S NOT THERE, AND BIG SURPRISE SINCE IT’S INVISIBLE. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT IN INVISIBLE MATTER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO INDIRECT EVIDENCE JIM WHILE MOCKING CHRISTIANS FOR BELIEVING IN GOD WHO TO THOSE ON EARTH IS PURPOSELY INVISIBLE AND FOR WHOM THERE IS COUNTLESS EVIDENCE FOR, AS I’VE PARTIALLY SHOWN HERE? What’s wrong with that picture you’ve given us Jim? Isn’t the one who “believe[s] fairies run your engine” you, the guy who believes in invisible matter that no one can detect and in your ignorance keep claiming all scientists say is there?

“Old-earth” radiometric dating is arbitrary and flawed and one form shows the universe is “young” (though 6500 years old is hardly young compared to the age of the oldest humans):

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
2) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
3) http://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-058/radiometric-dating-shows-young-earth
4) http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
5) Creation’s Tiny Mystery

Man did live and still does live with dinosaurs you idiot.

“Jesus lived with the dinosaurs” you said in sarcasm. MORON: DARWINISTS SAY HUMANS LIVED WITH DINOSAURS AND HAVE BEEN SAYING SO FROM THE BEGINNING YOU IDIOT. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT NORONS LIKE YOU, IGNORANT OF DARWINIST EVOLUTIONARY THEORY STARTED COMING UP WITH NONSENSE LIKE THAT, WHICH DARWINIST SCIENTISTS STILL DON’T USE YOU IDIOT. What they say moron, is that Noah’s Ark is absurd, and for those who are more clever, they say it’s also a contradictory story. You’re so dumb you can’t even be bothered to learn the precious theory of your heros correctly. That’s how careless you are with the truth. On top of that moron, who in the Hell said dinosaurs were all dead, or that they all magically died when the first “Homo sapien” appeared? Do you know what living fossils are? Now that’s not a big surprise you wouldn’t though still is hardly excusable since Darwinist mention them now and then, and of course not to often SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CREATURES REFUTE EVOLUTION. Here Jim, more easy work for you that you could have done for yourself:

1) http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil. Some are also listed in your precious Wikipedia (is Wikipedia a creationist website Jim?)

And how are you ignorant of dragon sightings and other dinosaur sitings, both ancient and modern? Why are you so unfun that you can’t look into such stories? Why didn’t the Loch Ness Monster sightings get you to start reading about such sightings? Is everyone who lives around the Loch Ness and all the tourists who have been there, who have seen dinosaurs there “nuts” too Jim? Is everyone nuts who sees what you don’t?

And you’re so stupid you can’t figure out that we wiped out most of the dinosaurs by hunting them down for food, sport, or prestige, or that we burned down their habitat, as Aboriginees in Australia and those living in the Amazon still do today, in order to make the land safer for ourselves and to farm? But no, you think, “A comet did it,” “A meteor did it,” or “A volcano did it,” don’t you gullible Jimmy? And of course we just happened to survive while all the dinosaurs magically died or shurnk to the size of birds and mice. Nice stupid simpleton “fairy tale” Jim. Here little Jimmy, here unfun Jimmy, here unimaginative Jimmy, here Magic Meteor Jimmy; more help for your hardly imaginitive, lazy mind, lazy eyes and hands:

2) http://cryptozoology.com
3) http://theserenedragon.net/Tales/tales.html
4) http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
5) http://s8int.com/dino1.html
6) http://newanimal.org
7) http://lorencoleman.com/top_cryptids.html
8) http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com
9) http://cryptids.net/cryptopedia/index.htm
10) http://nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html
11) http://genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

And no biased Jim, those aren’t all creationist websites; only three are. And even if they were, what matters is if they are true, not, “But those are all Darwinist sites.” Even your precious Wikipedia lists cryptids Jim, even they declare them to be “noteworthy” Jim. Even “skeptics”, your mentally ill kin, talk about cryptids in Skeptic Magazine, and very often.

And Jim, what happened to mammoths? Don’t they count as dinosaurs? Oh, is it because they weren’t reptiles? So only reptiles are dangerous? Mammoths were nice huh? And who said reptiles can’t be lived near? I think you deluded yourself into thinking that all dinosaurs eat people from all the silly propaganda you were raised on, on those silly dinosaur coloring books, Discovery Channel and Jurassic Park cartoons, and B horror movies. But if only you had paid a little closer attention and put in a little more thought, and realized not all dinosaurs ate flesh you idiot, no dinosaur was said to have eaten humans you idiot, and that Discovery Channel isn’t a nonprofit company that shows cartoons because they are just so concerned about teaching you how the entire planet was covered with man-eating Tyrannosaurs. Oh wait, they don’t teach that. But you’re an idiot who misses the details even when the propaganda is light.

And are Komodo Dragons good enough for you Jim? Do they count as dinosaurs? Duh? Are all the people living near Komodo Dragons dead? No, in fact the Komodo Dragons are the ones who are almost dead, and hardly anyone goes near them except to take a picture.

Your dumb Jim.

Another thing about your Wikipedia, where “the site all you nuts come from”:

The long term editors and administrators deliberately try and make alternative scientists look bad regardless of whether or not their theories have been shown to be true, they try to have articles on breakthrough scientists and inventors deleted or made to look silly. You just are ignorant and don’t care much about the truth Jim, no offense. You obsess on what you feel is true and believe what merely sounds to be true to you, and don’t go further.

Jim, you’re being hypocritical: many Darwinist Scientists and non-scientist Darwinists, often simply as you do, say the equivalent of, “It’s so,” “That’s the way it is,” “There’s [scientific evidence]”, and some even say, “Atheist” as their source/reference, referring to themselves. They might as well say, “Me,”. You also merely make empty claims backed by mere emotion. You merely claim that oil is formed in such and such way and that’s it’s millions of years old. That’s not evidence let alone scientific evidence. It’s no better than your sarcastic stereotypes like,”Jesus made the oil” or “angels make radio waves”.

As for your magical scientific evidence, “They all come from the same website” as in “Young Earth Creationists all come from the same website”, says who? And what does that even mean? So all “young earthers” contact you via answersingenesis.com? Really? So now it’s, “AIG did it!” Jim? That’s your new scientific evidence against young earthers? Lame. AIG is staffed by people born from humans raised in many different ways, some who were former atheists or agnostics, not people who were born by a website. “Young Earthers” no more all or mostly come from AIG anymore than Gullibles like yourself all come from Wikipedia (Mr. Wikipedia Referring Jim). AIG refers to scientific evidence from multiple sources, they don’t just invent things from a vacuum or say, “The Bible did it,” and unlike Wikipedia – which you love and seem to think is evidence in and of itself – does not reject truth in favor of keeping the appearance of truth to suit their feelings.

Further, if we “all c[a]me from the same [web]site,” whatever that means, how is that evidence, let alone scientific evidence that “young earth” creationism is wrong? So if “you all” Billions of Years Old Big Bombers came from Wikipedia, TalkOrigins or KKOB that would make you wrong? Well then you must be wrong too; you’ve contradicted your own arbitrary logic. And oooo, how bad: “They all have an organization, they’re all organized,” is basically what you said: yeah what a horrible thing Jim, what a sin, gotta really hate ORGANIZATION, cuz ORGANIZATION is so bad, right Mr. Chaos? Why do you chaos believers hate DESIGN, and ORGANIZATION so much? See how illogical your DISORGANIZED CHAOTIC mind is? Your hang ups say some powerful things about your false logic. It’s just so bad to make things convenient for you anti-Christians isn’t it Jim? If the information was chaotically spread out all over the Internet no doubt your hateful self would then say something like, “They’re scatter brained and disorganized.” Sorry to make things convenient for you Jim, so sorry to help you out by putting the info all in one place. So evil and unscientific of us. Wait, if that’s a sin, why do you love Wikipedia?; yet again your insults backfire. Can’t you stop contradicting yourself?

Further, you really don’t know Christians or young earth scientists: you said 60+ million Calvinists come from ansswersingenesis. Really? Yes Jim, that’s how many “young earth” believers there are. You’re truly ignorant. But no, we don’t all simply use that website, there are many “young earth” science sites, some of which are linked to the side of my journal and two others I have:

http://creationengineeringconcepts.org
http://answersincreation.org
http://answersingenesis.com
http://christiananswers.net
http://creationwiki.com
http://genesispark.com
http://creationists.org
http://unevolved.org
http://creation.com
http://orionfdn.org
http://nmidnet.org
http://halos.com
http://yecs.org
http://icr.org

So what was that about us all coming from one site Jim? Is what matters is, “Nanny nanny boo boo you only have one site we have more,” or, “It’s just a few people,” “They’re all from one house,” “They’re all from one apartment complex,” “They’re all from one block,” “They’re all from one town,” “They’re all from one city,” “They’re all from one state,” “They’re all from one country,” “They’re all from one side of the planet,” “They’re all from one planet,” “They’re all from one solar system,” “They’re all from one galaxy,” “They’re all from one galaxy cluster”, “They’re all human,” “They’re all from one universe”? No, what matters is: IS WHAT “THEY” SAY TRUE.”

Ironically I met a moron even dumber than you who made fun of Christians for being “lazy” she said, because,”notice” she said, “You have more sites”, “MORE” Jim, not “They’re all from one site.” So which nut arbitrary nut should the world, including us “young earthers” believe Jim? Oh God of Science and Religion Jim, which stupid insult defeats us? They can’t be both right since they contradict. Hence, why we don’t believe your ranting, because that’s all you anti-true Christians do. You anti-true Christians show every hour that you are arbitrary, paranoid, racked with bitterness, and that your morality and logic is backwards. Yes “conservative” Jim, you’re better than liberals in that you say Christians should have the right to home-school their children under Christianity, but you err when you discriminate against “young earthers”, claiming that we’re teaching children “to answer wrong on tests” you said. As you would notice if you bothered to READ FIRST OUR TEACHINGS, rather than putting childish words in our mouth, you bully, you would see WE TEACH YOUR STUPIDITY NECESSARILY, since you idiots won’t shut up about it. You moron.

If you or others think I’ve not read the rebuttals to the sites and specific arguments I showed, you’re wrong:

1) There isn’t a rebuttal for many arguments against your arguments against the Bible. Can you guess the reason why besides some cheap lie you’d first think like, “We’ll because you Christians are just nuts, and you say things that don’t make sense”? Hints: THEY ARE TRUE AND CLEARLY TRUE, AND WHO IS GOING TO CHALLENGE ANTI-CHRISTIANS WHEN THEY SAY THE SAME THING AS “YOUNG EARTHERS”. Were those hints clear enough?

2) I refuted the rebuttals, for example on Yahoo Answers and on Amazon.com. On Amazon.com I refuted a ranting nut like you, only more clever and who actually bothered to at least read what the opposition said, whole books even. I documented it early in my journal here. But what did two Amazon moderators do when I complained about this nut deliberately skewing the ratings of creationist books by repeatedly voting them down, and by repeatedly voting down my replies to him so that they would be hidden, and stalking me?: They deleted not only some of my reviews but dozens of my replies in the comment field to the ranting nut who was clearly stalking me. And what were your Amazon moderator buddies’ reason for doing so? The one who bothered to email said it was because what I said was all hateful. Sure. Isn’t that just such a good reason to censor replies to a ranting stalker Mr. “Christians Just Say Jesus Did It” Loving Non-Hateful Jim? You hypocrites. Ooops, I shouldn’t have said that that’s hateful because it hurts your feelings, your loving scientific “Christians are hypocrites for judging right from wrong and have no right to judge others who call themselves Christians or not,” feelings. No you didn’t literally say that, but you said the equivalent in your ranting one day against a congregation that was judging a former member who was still calling herself a Christian, the same day you said we can only know if someone is gay or straight if we have sex with them. No, ur not nuts and evil at all, not.

And Mr. Jim Pro Science Villanuci, how can there be scientific progress if you slander “young earthers” and misrepresent them and try and block them from being heard? So that’s science, to block opposing view points that you can’t even be bothered to listen to? So we should just believe whatever you and your Darwinists say is true and ask no questions and never point out any errors we see? It’s because of morons like you, Darwinist morons like you, afraid of facing God, that there is gross scientific stagnation and fraud in Darwinist Mainstreamer dominated organizations like Wikipedia, the Smithsonian, NASA, and the U.S. Government in general, the same government you constantly rail against forgetting that it’s mostly composed of Darwinists like you.

As usual, you anti-Christians accuse us of what you are guilty of doing, while pretending to be for Christ or neutral, while we really are for Christ, and believe the truth, rather than being neutral.

So is it any wonder that you’re stuck below the top 65 radio show hosts in the US? Being a smug, boring, mocker who makes cheap lazy slanderous insults at Christians who spend their time and money helping the poor and needy only gets you so far.

Your the one teaching kids to answer wrong on man’s tests, and much worse: wrong on God’s tests.

Astrophysisist Says You Can Have “Spirituality” Without Religion

August 17, 2009 Leave a comment

Astrophysicist and author Dr. Bernard Haisch (whom Ian Punnet called, "one of the smartest men in the world.") discussed last night and this morning, on Coast to Coast AM, his theory that the universe is a product of an intelligence or consciousness, and how this is supported by recent astrophysical findings, and to pitch his book on those topics, called "The God Theory." Ian, seemingly to Bernard’s annoyance, asked him so good questions, revealing Haisch’s heretical book to be near worthless.

Ian asked Haisch what he thought o karma, and Haisch implied that when we do bad things that we judge ourselves and so we determine the negative effects that happen to us and so after we die how we lived determines what we next reincarnate as. How convenient for those who are evil! And how obviously false. Since when do those who do evil in this life time get instantly punished? Even the ancient "obsolete" Bible written by supposedly unobservant ignorants says,

"When I think about this, I am terrified;
trembling seizes my body.

Why do the wicked live on,
growing old and increasing in power?

They see their children established around them,
their offspring before their eyes.

Their homes are safe and free from fear;
the rod of God is not upon them.

Their bulls never fail to breed;
their cows calve and do not miscarry.

They send forth their children as a flock;
their little ones dance about.

They sing to the music of tambourine and harp;
they make merry to the sound of the flute.

They spend their years in prosperity
and go down to the grave in peace.

Yet they say to God, ‘Leave us alone!
We have no desire to know yourways.

Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
What would we gain by praying to him?’

But their prosperity is not in their own hands,
so I stand aloof from the counsel of the wicked.

Yet how often is the lamp of a
wicked [people] snuffed out?
How often does calamity come upon them,
the fate God allots in his anger?
"
Job 21:6-17"

And how many people are so stupid, so mentally darkened, that they don’t know that this is an unfair world? Who doesn’t think this is an unfair world? Who has never complained about corrupt leaders getting away with doing evil and dying in peace like Job complained about over 3000 thousand years ago? How many people don’t know that humans in general are unjust and don’t judge themselves perfectly but make exceptions for themselves? So how can Haisch say that we judge ourselves, in other words, that we give ourselves just punishment and correct rewards?

Ian also asked Haisch what he thought of a God who planned everything out, and Haisch said, "It doesn’t appeal to me." Yet just now (1:08 A.M.) Ian said Haisch was "coming from a purely scientific view." Though some may tell me Haisch wasn’t talking about his feelings, but had scientific reasons as to why it didn’t appeal to him, I know that’s wrong, since, that response is not an accepted as a scientific standard. For example, imagine a scientist, who is a Darwinist, says, "The scientific experiments we performed show that there is no such thing as randomness and that everything is preplanned, and follows physical laws. But that doesn’t appeal to me. So I don’t believe the results of the experiments."

Haisch also said, "In my view God doesn’t interfere in the world. … He creates boundries initially. … That’s the point of it."

Who cares what your view is? What matters is what is, reality. What matters is the evidence, the truth.

First caller: "Where does evil fit into this? …do you feel there is an evil out there somewhere, that manipulates peoples’ lives"

Haisch’s response: "I really don’t believe in any active evil force" … "I think there is a being without any polarity, a perfect being."

The caller was referring to a being like Satan obviously, and Haisch, without any explanation as to why, said, "no". How insightful.

A little while later Haisch said, "Not because he doesn’t care but because it would destroy his own plan to let things arise of it’s own accord. …to let things develop on their own."

Haisch is contradicting himself and saying things not based on evidence:

1) God is obviously perfectly wise and would know the outcome of anything based on how he set up the first laws and first thing or things in motion. So to say that God set the universe up to continue randomly makes no sense.

2) It makes even less sense since Haisch said God set up laws, and clearly these laws have remained, and according to scientists like Haisch, have, at least after the first explosion, stayed almost exactly the same or have stayed the same, as opposed to disappearing or changing due to randomness (unknowable changes due to lack of control by an intelligent being and it’s inability to know the outcome of that control). So, if things were meant to happen randomly after God made the universe or set it’s creation in motion to occur randomly, then his creating physical laws and making the explosion so precise that it ended up with our solar system and all the molecules in it in exactly the place he wanted would have been futile as as soon as he withdrew his control of the laws of the universe, it would have all started to come undone and returned back into a formless void.

3) Haisch claimed that God doesn’t "interfere" in the universe because it would defeat the point of everything happening randomly. What is his evidence for that? None. Haisch is contradicting himself in two ways, and not making sense in a another way:

a) Haisch defines "interference" as God doing anything in the universe, because it would prevent the universe from being random. Therefore Haisch is (and obviously doesn’t clearly realize it) that God knows the future and the consequences of all his actions, even the smallest action. If that is true, then God knew exactly what would happen by his "interference" in the beginning!

b) Even if Haisch defined interference as only being something God does to affect the universe after the first replicating life appeared on Earth, he still would be contradicting himself since Haisch already implied that God was not interfering with the universe while he controlled it up to the point of life appearing or beginning to replicate. So, Haisch is being arbitrary with his definitions, meaning, changing them so that God appeals to his feelings, what he wishes God to be.

Another caller asked Haisch if he believed in divine intervention (and though Haisch earlier said that he didn’t as I’ve pointed out) Haisch, by saying this, has contradicted himself again:

1) By saying that he did believe God participated in the universe indirectly (because he believes that we share God’s consciousness and manipulate reality with our consciousness – he said, "The universe is based on consciousness." earlier in the show), he is saying that God is participating in the universe. He even just now (at 1:50 A.M. about) said, "We are God."

2) What does it matter whether or not God participates directly or indirectly, it would still be "interference" according to one of Haisch’s definitions (definitions which are not compatible). And using Haisch’s logic, God could happily participate all he wanted by simply doing it indirectly by sending angels to do what he wanted, OR, CONTROLLING US INDIRECTLY WITHOUT USING ANGELS. So, Haisch’s logic is contradictory as he said that God doesn’t participate because it would be interference, yet says God does participate indirectly (at least he had meant that God does not manipulating things directly with his Spirit, like moving objects or energy around).

3) Haisch is also contradicting himself in that if we are God as he said, then God is interfering in this universe since we are acting in it and therefore preventing it from being random. Haisch even said that it’s based on our consciousness, so it’s design is based on what we want it to be. Haisch is illogical in his teachings upon God. He even said, after all this:

4) "I certainly haven’t proven anything." Well he has, using false evidence, convinced at least one caller that called late into the show, and so, he couldn’t even define the word "proof" right. Though someone may say, "Well he didn’t think he’d prove anything to anyone," but if that is true, then why is trying to? Why did he write a book and make a website and come on the show to do so? He wasn’t simply giving his opinions as much of what he said shows. If Haisch has said that he isn’t trying to prove, trying to convince anyone of anything, then he’s severely confused because he has shown that he is trying to prove things about God to himself and others.

Haisch’s problem, or dilemma if you want to say, is his not understanding how God can having other beings like himself who are able to choose to do things if God controls everything or anything. Haisch doesn’t understand that God can have self-aware beings who can choose and do choose, that we can be self-aware and choose to do things, and that God can still have his way by having everything turn out the way he wants, by his controlling our emotions, and INDIRECTLY directing our will by doing so. For example, when a donkey or duck is hungry, we humans can imprecisely get either of these animals to go after the food. God, being perfectly wise, is able to get us to go exactly where he wants, both physically, spiritually, and mentally, by precisely controlling whatever we feel, and our bodies and the matter and energy and spiritual things around us (but not our will). Since he can see into the future (or at least is able to calculate the exact outcome of all things by his actions upon them), knows exactly what will happen by any action he takes. If Haisch realizes that the mind of our spiritual head so to speak, is, has thoughts like it’s heart does, but is influenced by the thoughts of it’s heart, he would understand, I think, how God can have a universe with beings that choose, while still getting his way. So, what this all comes down to, his Haisch’s misunderstanding of what the heart and will are, his misdefinitions of those words, including the words God, interference, and control.

What Haisch also doesn’t understand is that the universe can’t exist apart from God’s control of it. The evidence for this, indirectly is what the Bible teaches, but it’s also evidence based on what we can understand apart from the Bible: (I’m working on showing this evidence).

Also during the show, Ian Punnet said, "fundamentalism of any type often leads to violence" which is without evidence and a contradiction: Calvinists are fundamentalists who don’t believe in harming anyone physically unless God commands them too. They believe in obeying Jesus when he said not to curse their enemies but to help them to survive or live well and to get eternal life if they can. They believe in doing that because of what Jesus said was the second greatest law: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and a similar one, "Love one another" which Jesus gave (meaning to show favoritism to other Christians with the same religion, which makes sense since who is closer to you then someone who loves the same God? And everyone instinctively knows to show favoritism to a family member first, (at least if that adult family member is peaceful to their help)).

Ian also contradicted himself by saying that in that fundamentalists "of any type" can also be people who believe that there is no absolute truths to believe and therefore would be against those who believe in truth or certain truths (like Calvinism, whether they believe Calvinism to be true or not; they would be against those claiming it is true). So, Ian was refuting his own statement and own religion, a religion in which the second greatest law, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is unimportant to Ian, and which denies the fact that Jesus called himself, "The Truth" and therefore was saying that everything he said was perfectly true. Ian, during the show, called himself, "an armchair theologian." How true. I hope his schizophrenia towards the Bible leaves him so that he supports it fully and consistently, rather than confusingly and hypocritically, for a show.

Michio Kaku: The Blind Physicist Who Elected Himself Spokesperson for All Scientists

May 16, 2009 2 comments

“when you ask where physical law comes from, then you run into big problems” – Michio Kaku, December 18, 2002

“when someone asks us where string theory came from, at that point we just throw up our hands, we don’t know” – Michio Kaku, December 18, 2002

You don’t speak for all scientists Mich, and it was hateful for you to claim that creation scientist Christians say that they don’t know where the physical laws of the universe came from. Disorder doesn’t lead to order, and as you yourself said, on December 18, 2002, the chance of life coming about on its own is near to zero, which is a lie, since life can only come about from order, not disorder, so it is not near to zero, it is zero.

Update 4/15/2011:

Other Information on Michio’s Character

I found more info about Michio’s character some days ago, but because my laptop doesn’t have enough memory to handle what I do to it, I’ve delayed posting this info for a long while. But this is what I found on Mainstream Scientist Peter Woit’s blog:

A commenter points out that on [Michio’s] MySpace site [Michio] has posted a copy of a forthcoming article by him that is supposed to appear in New Scientist. It is about the controversy over string theory, but doesn’t at all deal with the criticisms of the theory contained in my book and Smolin’s. It does contain a thoroughly dishonest paragraph about me, misrepresenting my position at Columbia (Kaku is well aware than I am a faculty member and teach graduate courses here, as well as administering the department computer system), and describing me as a “former particle physicist” (he’s well aware I have recently written a book on the subject of particle physics and continue to conduct research on the subject; then again, many people consider him to be a “former particle physicist”). He ascribes my criticism of string theory to jealousy over having been turned down for tenured positions at prestigious universities in favor of string theorists, and misquotes something I wrote about string theory:

String theory has only a “poetic relationship” to reality.

I never have said or written anything like this.

More here

Related article: What Does Michio Kaku Believe?