Truth, Just like Gravity, is Not a Social Construct

"Post-truth" is the OEDs word of the year, because truth, like gravity, is not a post modernist social construction https://t.co/LgpRGigKnL pic.twitter.com/phyVDym5Ir

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 16, 2016

Laughing at Mockery, Tautology and the Bellman's Fallacy

Get the low-down on mockery, tautology and the "Bellman's Fallacy". Here: https://t.co/iAnfYaOf8F pic.twitter.com/vSKZvNqRpZ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 16, 2016

The BBC is not aware of the New Data yet. But they will be.

@Silverwriter Thanks. @BBCEarth historic data Wallace & Darwin probably read Matthew's Prior-published theory & lied https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/tkWX2xLOlD

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 15, 2016

More Wiki Stupidity

Never having mistaken me for a hat, you may have mistaken me for a copy of the Origin of Species. Thankfully no more https://t.co/PmcPoLehB6 pic.twitter.com/BUc2qnb3Xa

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 14, 2016

Comments Section of: "No Fuller than Complete: Darwin’s Age Comes to an End", by Gregory Sandstrom

The truth will always out in the end. But not before disgracefully fraudulent, fact denying and fact deleting Darwinitis have spree-shot themsleves in the butt-tocks for all eternity. 

See the facts getting out in the comments on this esteemed blog site: https://social-epistemology.com/2016/11/09/no-fuller-than-complete-darwins-age-comes-to-an-end-gregory-sandstrom/#comment-70960

My comment in conversation with Gregory Sandstrom: 

Dysology November 13, 2016 at 6:23 pm

Your comment will appear after being approved.

Etymology re Matthew and Darwin is correct now Gregory.

The “too bad Matthew never knew what he had” argument is a popular Darwinite “guilt neutralization by proxy” tactic that is rather similar to con-man thieves who say of their victim “poor sucker never knew what he had”.

In fact, the evidence suggests Matthew knew exactly what he conceived and so did others many years pre-1858. The evidence he knew what he had is that others did in the first half of the 19th century, and they communicated with hm about it. For example, in Matthew’s second 1860 letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle. he plainly informed Darwin (1) That a professor naturalist of an eminent university read and understood fully what Matthew conceived and yet was afraid to teach it to his students, or mention it elsewhere, for fear of pillory punishment. (2) That for the same reason (Matthew’s scientific trespass on natural divinity) his book was banned for being heretical by the public lending library of Perth in Scotland (Matthew called it by its nick-name "the Fair City"). All these details are fully cited in my peer reviewed 2016 article “On Knowledge contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis” Here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05.

For the very same reasons of fear of being prosecuted and persecuted for heresy Robert Chambers (who cited Matthew’s book in 1832) anonymously authored the best selling “Vestiges of Creation” – the book which put evolution in the air and paved the way for public acceptance of Darwin’s (1859) ‘Origin of Species'.

Moreover, other reviewers also knew the heresy of Matthew’s bombshell origination as early as 1831. The following text is from 1831 the anonymous review of Matthew’s 1831 book by the United Services Journal :

“But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility entailed property and insane enactments.”

An agenda Wikipedia editor operating under the name “Dave Souza” on the Patrick Matthew page keeps deleting the citation to the source of above fact under the fraudulent claim that it does not exist! Proof it does exist in the publication record, and proof of the desperate lengths Darwinians are going to to delete the New Data facts can be found here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23792,23792. Yet Wikipedia will not allow anyone to enter that fact on its Patrick Matthew page. In this way the greatest science fraud in history continues.

Darwinists will go to any length to hide the facts. I have many more examples.

Mike

Errol Jones

.Scot emigree @C_MAlexander @TheScotsman @heraldscotland 3rd great Granddaughter Patrick Matthew passed away Friday: https://t.co/UcvzXEORDe pic.twitter.com/exFyeW1GG0

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 13, 2016

Veracity Counter Culture and Weird and Wonderful Blogs on Darwin's Plagiarising Science Fraud

.I think we need new counter culture of veracity, to provide missing alt.future. Lack of which = HyperNormalisation https://t.co/mHQoLgTVuv https://t.co/vqzF7MuODH

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 13, 2016

++

Two weird & wonderful blogs on what is possibly the most massive science fraud of all:
1. https://t.co/sDW4VuwayY
2. https://t.co/zbnJjftf42 pic.twitter.com/OvXSStFBdL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 13, 2016

+++

@Dysology pic.twitter.com/Mx8vb9QJ0Y

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 13, 2016

Confirmatory Evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis

Darwinians were warned that if they continued to behave irrationally to the new data facts that the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis would be confirmed.

The Frozen Donkey Hypothesis is born of the implications of the obvious catastrophic extinction event impact of the New Data on Darwinist professional and amateur historians of science, who reveal by their plainly biased response to it, that they are necessarily concerned – if they are to remain so named Darwinists and not be re-born Matthewists – with ignoring the rational implications of the new disconfirming hard evidence for their prior soft knowledge beliefs in their namesake’s “independent” discovery of a prior published hypothesis that was read, and the book containing it cited, by naturalists who were Darwin’s admitted influencers and associates and correspondents- even though Darwin himself fallaciously wrote in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it.

See more on the hypothesis here. 
See more on the New Data - here.

.@risengrisha @Yestoitok @DiscoveryCSC Thanks. Darwinites were warned of sadly inevitable Frozen Donkey Hypothesis: https://t.co/TnMtwezQbo pic.twitter.com/rmCPKtUvE9

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2016

Charles Darwin and the Daleks

The #Daleks have always been involved in holding back scientific progresshttps://t.co/WSHCuYYrBE pic.twitter.com/lKmtIdt8nE

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2016

Excellent Research Resource Repository

 Here you will find a number of peer reviewed articles that examine the question of Darwin's originality and science fraud by plagiarism : https://core.ac.uk/display/30649866

A truly excellent resource!