Wednesday, January 25, 2017

How Big is the Closet?

A Report From Academia

When a theory repeatedly fails its fundamental predictions, and is unable to explain even the basic facts, well there is bound to be doubt. No evolutionist who has ever peered into a microscope can look in the mirror and maintain self-respect. So I wasn’t too surprised when a friend told me that all across the country, life science professors “have told me in private they have questions about evolution,” and he keeps their identities secret. One wonders: How big is the closet?
Posted by at
Labels:

25 comments:

  1. TrevorDJanuary 25, 2017 at 7:43 AM

    This is not a "report from Academia", it's just hearsay.

    It's not accepted in a court of law and it's not science either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GJanuary 25, 2017 at 8:26 AM

      It's a report. It isn't supposed to be science. OTOH evolution ism isn't science and it's existence hurts science

      Delete
    2. TrevorDJanuary 25, 2017 at 2:15 PM

      It doesn't matter whether it is a report or not, it is still hearsay. If Cornelius can substantiate it with verifiable facts, it could be an interesting story. But without that, like all hearsay, it should be disregarded.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius HunterJanuary 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM

      it should be disregarded.

      Indeed. Always best to ignore all things that do not confirm your bias.

      Delete
    4. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 3:01 PM

      CH: "Indeed. Always best to ignore all things that do not confirm your bias."

      No. but it is always wise to ignore people who say, 'I have a friend who talked to others, who claim that....., but they all wanted to remain anonymous.'

      Delete
    5. TrevorDJanuary 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM

      CH: "Indeed. Always best to ignore all things that do not confirm your bias."

      Nothing to do with my bias. What you have provided is hearsay. Here's the definition:

      "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate"

      As a scientist you should know better.

      Delete
    6. Joe GJanuary 25, 2017 at 5:14 PM

      By Carole's logic evolutionism should be disregarded as its claims cannot be substantiated

      Delete
    7. GhostriderJanuary 25, 2017 at 6:11 PM

      CaroleTim

      As a scientist you should know better.

      No one ever mistook the fact-twisting YEC propagandist for a scientist.

      Delete
  2. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 8:54 AM

    "No evolutionist who has ever peered into a microscope can look in the mirror and maintain self-respect. "

    I spent three years peering in a microscope examining marine copepods and ciliates, and I never lost my self respect.

    "So I wasn’t too surprised when a friend told me that all across the country, life science professors “have told me in private they have questions about evolution,” and he keeps their identities secret."

    Did you ever think that your friend is lying to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterJanuary 25, 2017 at 9:18 AM

      I spent three years peering in a microscope examining marine copepods and ciliates, and I never lost my self respect.

      Well there's always delusion as an explanatory factor. The idea that the most complex entities in the known universe arose spontaneously is silly. But of course this has always been with us. You can see it in the 19th c, 18th c, 17th c., ..., Middle Ages, antiquity with the Epicureans, etc, etc.

      Did you ever think that your friend is lying to you?

      No, that's not him.

      Delete
  3. Joe GJanuary 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM

    I spent three years peering in a microscope examining marine copepods and ciliates, and I never lost my self respect.

    You think there is a molecular code that turns water into ice at zero C. Obviously you don't have any self-respect

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 11:41 AM

      Joke: "You think there is a molecular code that turns water into ice at zero C."

      There goes Joe lying again.

      Delete
    2. Joe GJanuary 25, 2017 at 4:10 PM

      Lol! You said it and it is there for all to see.

      Is H2O a code?

      I was talking about the molecule itself, not the symbol.

      "The molecule is not a code. It doesn't fit the definition."

      Really? So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?

      There it is! You either think it was magic or a molecular code that turns water into ice.

      You obviously have honesty issues

      Delete
    3. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM

      So, if I ask you a question, that means that I believe in the premise of that question? Only a moron would accept that. But let's test it:

      Are you a moronic child molester?

      Delete
    4. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 7:05 PM

      Joke: "When you ask a question and provide two answers that means you accept one of them as the truth."

      I am confused. The last time I looked, an answer ends with a period, not a question mark. But, according to Joe, I provided two answers. Yet, both "answers" ended with question marks. In addition to Joe being mathematically challenged, he is obviously punctuationally challenged.

      Delete
    5. Joe GJanuary 25, 2017 at 7:22 PM

      I am confused.

      Yes, you are.

      Your format isn't any different from:

      the fact that it crystallized at zero C is:
      a- just magic; or
      b- a built in molecular code

      But then again understanding language and communication isn't your strong point.

      And just because you are a dishonest imbecile doesn't make nme mathematically challenged. What kind of cowardly argument is that?

      And don't talk about punctuations when you can't even spell:

      Or is their a built in molecular code?- there, not their. So stop with the cowardly distractions already

      Delete
    6. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 7:49 PM

      Joke: "Your format isn't any different from:

      the fact that it crystallized at zero C is:
      a- just magic; or
      b- a built in molecular code"      .

      Except for the minor point that it was completely different.

      What I actually said was:

      "So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?"

      Did you notice the two question marks? Everybody else did.

      "But then again understanding language and communication isn't your strong point."

      Obviously, it is your weakness, not mine.

      "And just because you are a dishonest imbecile doesn't make nme mathematically challenged."

      No, your lack of understanding of basic mathematical concepts makes you mathematically challenged. Or are you still insisting that cycles/second = mm?

      "And don't talk about punctuations when you can't even spell:"

      If you are going to criticize someone's spelling, you should do it in a comment where you don't have any spelling mistakes. Or have we changed the spelling of "me" to "nme"?

      Delete
    7. bFastJanuary 25, 2017 at 7:49 PM

      I am confused. This is the stupidest sub-thread I have read in ages. Where did water freezing come from?

      Delete
    8. William SpearshakeJanuary 25, 2017 at 8:05 PM

      BFast: "I am confused. This is the stupidest sub-thread I have read in ages. Where did water freezing come from?"

      Ask Joe. He is the one with the water obsession. I suspect that it stems from the fact that he wet the bed until into his early twenties.

      Delete
    9. Joe GJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:11 AM

      desperate willie:
      Did you notice the two question marks?

      LoL! When you provide only two choices it is obvious that you think the answer is one of those two choices. Otherwise you are just being a dishonest jerk.

      For example:

      Teacher- Is the capital of Canada Toronto? Or is it Ottawa?

      Wee Willie, desperate and dishonest to the core

      Delete
    10. Joe GJanuary 26, 2017 at 3:12 AM

      bfast- the water freezing came into play as wee willie is trying to pretend it is a scientist. But if true wee willie is the saddest scientist in the world and its posts are proof of that. It doesn't even know what a code is

      Delete
    11. Joe GJanuary 26, 2017 at 7:19 AM

      wee willie:
      No, your lack of understanding of basic mathematical concepts makes you mathematically challenged.

      Sed the imbecile who thinks a solid = a liquid just cuz both are mad up of H2O.

      Heck that makes you mathematically and scientifically challenged. But hey you are an evolutionist and that makes you scientifically illiterate anyway.

      Or have we changed the spelling of "me" to "nme"?

      LoL! There is a difference between a typo and a spelling error. Grow up, loser

      Delete
  4. Rebel ScienceJanuary 25, 2017 at 11:28 AM

    "No evolutionist who has ever peered into a microscope can look in the mirror and maintain self-respect."

    Except the brain-dead ones who failed at simple math and have no clue what 'combinatorial explosion' means.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mad docJanuary 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM

    That's great news, Cornelius: (they)“have told me in private they have questions about evolution”. Perhaps evolutionism is similar to communism; many of the people in the regime knew it was wrong but too scared do anything about it, the rest were brainwashed.
    Also Stalin read Darwin while studying to be an orthodox priest and was booted out of the seminary (he tried to convert his fellow seminarians). Stalin became an advocate of the Layarckian version of evolution which was a factor in the great purges of the soviet regime.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)