Is this more weird Darwinist worshipping guilt neutralization for Blessed Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud by replication of Matthew's prior published theory and proven lies about who he knew read and cited it first?
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 17, 2018
1. https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m
2.https://t.co/wILiENUgvF https://t.co/K8RQPSoG6L
Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
Monday, 17 December 2018
Darwinist Guilt Neutralization by Proxy?
Monday, 10 December 2018
Do truth, lies and proven facts matter if they prove the scientific community to be made up of credulous fact denying pseudo scholarly idiots?
Some scientists & historians think proven lies, truth & important facts don't matter. See timeline presentation of the reactions of fact denying historians of science & others to the proven yet painful truth of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism and lies https://t.co/KwuA3kxcnu pic.twitter.com/GBJb193ZsK
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 10, 2018
Sunday, 9 December 2018
Why a forester first conceived Matthewism (it's not Darwinism because Darwin plagiarised the theory of macroevolution by natural selection)
Many years ago Zon explained exactly why a forester (Patrick Matthew) first conceived and prior published the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated it years later.
Darwinism in Forestry. By Raphael Zon (1913) The American Naturalist Vol. 47, No. 561 (Sep.), pp. 540-546
Even without the new proof of Darwin’s and Wallace’s lies, deceptions and plagiarising science fraud that is afforded by big data analysis (Sutton 2014, 2017), the natural conclusion of Zon’s century old thesis is that neither Darwin nor Wallace had a comparably plausible framework of expertise that can be relied upon to understand how they were supposed to have arrived ‘independently’ of Matthew at exactly the same complex theory, terminology and explanatory examples. Click to read .
Interestingly, Alexander Kohn in 'False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and medicine' (1986, p.69) notes the following in relation to the massive Russian science fraudster, Lysenko (ironically Kohn unfortunately refers to Matthewism as Darwinism in typical establishment myth-led error):
'Among other of Lysenko's ideas for the improvement of Soviet agriculture one may mention the growing of sugar beat in summer in Central Asia (1943/44) and the cluster planting of trees. Each time the sugar beat shoots perished, The idea of cluster planting was based on the rejection of the Darwinian concept of competition individuals of the same species (...) and its purpose was to create protecting belts of forest around fields. Not until 1954 did it become evident that this idea was also a failure, and the All Union Conference of Foresters voted it down as bankrupt, after a loss of several billion roubles.'
Of course, the concept of evolution by natural selection belongs to the forester Matthew, not Darwin. And it the idea of competition between trees that led to its conception - by a forester!
Those interested in such important facts may like to see my timeline presentation of the reactions of some fact denying historians of science and others to the seemingly unbearable truth of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism and lies Here
Darwinism in Forestry. By Raphael Zon (1913) The American Naturalist Vol. 47, No. 561 (Sep.), pp. 540-546
Even without the new proof of Darwin’s and Wallace’s lies, deceptions and plagiarising science fraud that is afforded by big data analysis (Sutton 2014, 2017), the natural conclusion of Zon’s century old thesis is that neither Darwin nor Wallace had a comparably plausible framework of expertise that can be relied upon to understand how they were supposed to have arrived ‘independently’ of Matthew at exactly the same complex theory, terminology and explanatory examples. Click to read .
Interestingly, Alexander Kohn in 'False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and medicine' (1986, p.69) notes the following in relation to the massive Russian science fraudster, Lysenko (ironically Kohn unfortunately refers to Matthewism as Darwinism in typical establishment myth-led error):
'Among other of Lysenko's ideas for the improvement of Soviet agriculture one may mention the growing of sugar beat in summer in Central Asia (1943/44) and the cluster planting of trees. Each time the sugar beat shoots perished, The idea of cluster planting was based on the rejection of the Darwinian concept of competition individuals of the same species (...) and its purpose was to create protecting belts of forest around fields. Not until 1954 did it become evident that this idea was also a failure, and the All Union Conference of Foresters voted it down as bankrupt, after a loss of several billion roubles.'
Of course, the concept of evolution by natural selection belongs to the forester Matthew, not Darwin. And it the idea of competition between trees that led to its conception - by a forester!
Those interested in such important facts may like to see my timeline presentation of the reactions of some fact denying historians of science and others to the seemingly unbearable truth of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism and lies Here
ddddd
On Soviet Era science fraudster Lysenko & why a forester first conceived Matthewism. It's not Darwinism because Darwin is proven to have plagiarised the theory of macroevolution natural selection from Matthew, then lied about who he knew who prior-cited it https://t.co/lZdfcmSMYz pic.twitter.com/IICxazt5Fq— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 9, 2018
Friday, 7 December 2018
Merry Xmas Suckers!
Atheists are most offended that at #Christmas I (an atheist) celebrate Darwin's & Wallace's miraculous immaculate dual miracle conception of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory whilst influenced & surrounded by friends, editors and influencers who had prior read & cited it pic.twitter.com/vdtkhDEtBJ
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 7, 2018
Tuesday, 4 December 2018
What's the Matter with Richard Dawkins?
Be honest man! In point of verifiable fact, Social Science @sociologyopen hammers mercilessly the fake-history that biologists including you Richard & your mates promote to deify Darwin and yourself.
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 4, 2018
1. https://t.co/wILiENUgvF
2. https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m
3. https://t.co/bI2L3RMlhR pic.twitter.com/87SSiW7ZFy
Thursday, 29 November 2018
On Darwin's Proven Plagiarism and Unscholarly Reactions to its Discovery
#SitP #Teesside 6 Dec 19:30 | Dr Mike Sutton | What If Darwin Wasn't First? https://t.co/DWELP06FDH
— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) November 29, 2018
Monday, 26 November 2018
Scientists behaving like a bunch of blissed out demented believers
It's time scientists faced up to the newly unearthed facts about Charles #Darwin instead of behaving like a demented naive and willfully ignorant blissed-out church congregation listening to an atheist explain what verifiable evidence really is: Visit https://t.co/xBGGof5eY7 pic.twitter.com/mbXo3JBpeO
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 26, 2018
Saturday, 24 November 2018
Let's celebrate a great lying plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft today
-On this day 159 years ago 24 November 1859 Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species was published' Yet 28 years earlier a naturalist at the centre of Darwin's network wrote that Patrick Matthew's 1831 book (1st with the theory) expressed original findings on "the origin of species" . pic.twitter.com/9CR2jhWgob
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 24, 2018
This day 159 years ago 24 Nov 1859 Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published It was the greatest act of lying plagiarising science fraud in the history of science:
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 24, 2018
1. https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6
2. https://t.co/yZSRhuMq7p
3. https://t.co/R3oTyZalfe
4. https://t.co/WSHCuYYrBE pic.twitter.com/2urS32T0g8
Friday, 16 November 2018
Dark Personality Traits on the Internet
Excellent. 😂😂😂 Dark 🌑. Here is some dark #blackscreen content from a seemingly "dark personality trait" who used the Internet to harass me, a young female primary school teacher. one of my female PhD students, you, the VC, a dean, and the pro VC of NTU https://t.co/t063WYr0jF https://t.co/lVEB34pC07
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 16, 2018
Encyclopedia Britannica
The Encyclopedia Britannica @john_p_rafferty, https://t.co/fpqIzJlEdy is producing a nicely slowly evolving version on the truth about Darwin's and Wallace's replications of Matthew's origination. Perhaps work on Darwin's proven lies about Matthew next? https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 16, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)