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
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 5 December 2016
Can Biologists count to four?
Sunday 4 December 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
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
Saturday 3 December 2016
Darwin Lied
https://t.co/6JQXBT0hko pic.twitter.com/qzxSF0IKTz
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 3, 2016
Friday 2 December 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.
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.
Tuesday 29 November 2016
Hypocrisy and delusional Darwinite thinking
@SkepticNikki @michaelshermer Sorry. No difference because Shermer credulously believes in the dual miracle conceptions of Darwin & Wallace pic.twitter.com/GLCCEhfPqc
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 29, 2016
Monday 28 November 2016
Data is the revolution that replaced lies and silly stories
.@ARWallace Fction can't replace the hard data that renders their dual immaculate conception miracle story redundant https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/OwLBONm297
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 28, 2016
Thursday 24 November 2016
The truth always gets out there in the end
++Good. There you are on debunking the spinach myth. Now... let's see your work on debunking the Darwin myth.. https://t.co/JY3gwIx2JQ— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) November 24, 2016
NTU's @Criminotweet was on @bbcworldservice discussing extremists in relation to the #JoCox murder trial https://t.co/tfWmwZwEyv (10.25 in)— NTU Press Office (@NTUNews) November 24, 2016
There is an alternative vision for the future. It's one based upon veracity not fact-denial, pseudo scholarship and political claptrap.
Wednesday 23 November 2016
Desperate Pseudo Scholarship: A case study
Discover the evidence-led mark of desperate pseudoscholarship: https://t.co/5htznSFyZZ pic.twitter.com/Okdzw7YZCg
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 23, 2016
Tuesday 22 November 2016
Survival of the fittest
Survival of the Fittest.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 22, 2016
Charles Darwin's lies about Matthew finally failed to outrun the truth. Now they must die! https://t.co/G8wgu5m1u8 pic.twitter.com/6G1SGeetdA
Saturday 19 November 2016
Merry Christmas Darwinites
Great to see @Dysology great research getting recognition. Did Darwin lie and 'steal' theory of natural selection? https://t.co/5rMplv9zQU— Dr James Treadwell (@James_Treadwell) November 2, 2016
Friday 18 November 2016
Those Who Harass and Facilitate the Harassment of Paradigm Changing Discoverers and Immortal Great Thinkers will be Exposed and Shamed for All Eternity
"A leading psychologist whose research on human memory exposed her to death threats, lawsuits, personal abuse and a campaign to have her sacked has won a prestigious prize for her courage in standing up for science."
Read her story: Here
What we do in this life echoes through eternity
++Having been professionally harassed & abused due to my discoveries I see Loftus's story of criminological imprtance: https://t.co/bpgUyVmZXz pic.twitter.com/rZh6hLKx2N— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 18, 2016
My own story so far - well just some of it. The rest is far worse and, rest assured, it will be published in the future.
Read just some of the facts of the professional harassment and abuse I have been on the receiving end of here
Here are the published facts some really don't like:
1. Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret
2. On Knowledge Contamination
Thursday 17 November 2016
Darwin might well have gorged on owl during one of his Glutton Club dinners
Charles Darwin ate my owl : https://t.co/VyRrxtG9Lf pic.twitter.com/epDDpCEYdO
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 17, 2016
Rattling windows and shaking doors
Re The Royal Society: Public Vote on Darwin's priority being set below Patrick Matthew's:https://t.co/oJ7yZgy2iz pic.twitter.com/BPaw95HIBN
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 17, 2016
Wednesday 16 November 2016
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
Tuesday 15 November 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
Monday 14 November 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
Sunday 13 November 2016
Comments Section of: "No Fuller than Complete: Darwin’s Age Comes to an End", by Gregory Sandstrom
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:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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.