Good Explanations are Capable of Easy Refutation with Hard Facts

.@ThinkAtheist Good explanations are capable of easy refutation. If ever we find a dinosaur above a human skeleton that disproves evolution. pic.twitter.com/wgAd7rMeZ3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 11, 2016

The "No Naturalists  Read It" Premesis Underpinning the Darwinite Paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's Independent Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Publshed Theory is 100 per cent Disconfirmed with Indpendently Verifiable Hard Evidence: Here 

Fact Denying Darwinians Face Intellectual Extinction

In the Democratic World we All have this Responsibility to Tackle Establishment Fact Denial: https://t.co/MXoXcakQ8u pic.twitter.com/d12PRE9tnk

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) July 16, 2016

Find out how Big Data analysis proved biologists think 25 = 0

Find out how I GOT 'EM! in first 3 #FREE chapters. Darwin & Wallace plagiarizing fraudstershttp://t.co/aE7UFhT8oZ … pic.twitter.com/sMrPchnOoc

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) March 27, 2015

Proof of Concept

Proof of concept as 8000+ brains now contaminated with the knowledge of Darwin's plagiarism and science fraud lies: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/D03Knn3feQ

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 9, 2016

++

Two peer reviewed articles prove we celebrate a glory thieving liar on the £10 note
1. https://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc
2. https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/5xkPjbmQiQ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 11, 2016

Can Biologists count to four?

Quantitative research of the simplest kind 100% disproves claims of the scientific establishment. 1+1+1+1 = 4 versus = Zero. pic.twitter.com/bTG9zZ3PXf

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 5, 2016

Are we attracted to belief in improbable independent conceptions and then to worship the claimants?

My Gift to Publier - The town in France forced to take down its Virgin Mary statue, because it is secular and in a public place Here 

Public Domain

Celebration in Public Places of Non-Secular Scientific Beliefs in Improbable Miracles is Probably OK in France

Christians believe that, whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some degree, St Mary had a virgin conception of Jesus of Nazareth by way of a supernatural deity.

Members of the scientific establishment believe Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each independently conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of macroevolution by natural slection whilst surrounded and influenced by friends, associates, and - in Wallace's case his editor - whose brains were fertile with Matthew's original breakthrough, because years earlier they cited the book containing it!

Perhaps there is something in the human psyche causing a compulsion to believe in improbable claims to independent conceptions and then worship the claimant?

More context: Here.   

Wallace could well have lied: In light of the new evidence

Available on Amazon: https://t.co/jj27KPguZU pic.twitter.com/aXtWuTMRKA

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 4, 2016

The Blessed Virgin Darwin

.@DrIreneZempi They can have the Virgin Darwin Image then. I think that will be OK because based on scientists with faith in dual miracle. pic.twitter.com/GddeY6GFg0

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 4, 2016

Darwin Lied

https://t.co/6JQXBT0hko pic.twitter.com/qzxSF0IKTz

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 3, 2016

One small step at a time: Driving the Corrupt Darwin-Lobby into the Gutter of the History of Science Fraudsters along with their Plagiarising Namesake

The Full Story of Corrupt-Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor Fraud  - up until yesterday - is here.

On  this topic the Wikipedia page now (currently) reads:

                                                                 ~~~
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Matthew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. 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." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.^[11][12]
                                                                  ~~~

Of course, Matthew's orignal conception was not limited to the book's appendix. That is a lie written by Darwin and parroted by his followers ever since as though it is the gospel truth. We know it is a lie, rather than a mistake,  because he admitted to his mentor Charles Lyell that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth on that particular issue. Get the peer reviewed facts - with full references to the independently verifiable historic publication record, which the weird pseudo-scholarly fact denial cult of corrupt Darwinities are trying to keep buried HERE.