The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Darwin debunked

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 14:45

DARWIN DEBUNKED

[I assume you are quoting from Darwin; if not, no matter, the same arguments apply]

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case...

No. There is no evidence whatsoever for the inheritance of 'progressive' improvements/variations in the eye, nor in anything else for that matter.

The capacity for variation, within strict limits, was placed in the original created pairs by the Creator.

Mutations are always corruptions of the original DNA and have never led to improvements in the genes of any 'kind' or 'species'.


...if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case...

No. See above. Variations can be inherited, but only variations within the original genetic potential of the original 'kind'.

...and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

He has jumped from variations within a created 'kind', which exist (e.g. varieties of dog or cat) to genetic improvements which do not occur and can be shown not to have occurred in the past.

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated...

I would have thought both were worthy of an answer - but then this is not science from Darwin, it is a cunning attempt to deceive and mislead.

...but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light

Because that's the way the Creator designed them.

...it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

"It does not seem impossible". This is rank speculation, not science. Nowhere in this piece nor elsewhere does Darwin nor any other evolutionist explain how a creature can improve his/her/its genetic stock. The phrase 'natural selection' provides more than a clue. The very term 'selection' highlights the self-evident fact that an individual, creature or plant etc. can only receive genes inherited from his/her/its parents or remoter ancestors. No creature can improve its genetic potential.

And as I've said, no mutation has long-term advantages; all are corruptions and involve loss, duplication or mistakes of one kind or another.

Stripped away from its clever verbiage, Darwin was trying to say: "Creatures and organs can improve bit by bit over time". No they can't. It hasn't happened in the past and it's not happening now. But then Darwin wasn't on a scientific mission. He was on a mission to change people's beliefs - as his correspondence with others shows.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by vaguely on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 14:46

I can't be bothered to argue.

Me and the peppered moth are off to Tesco.

____________________
and on day six God created the non-carbon triple duplicate complaint form.

vaguely

Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The peppered moth - yet one more of many scientific frauds by evolutionists

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 14:55

@vaguely wrote:I can't be bothered to argue. Me and the peppered moth are off to Tesco.
It's highly appropriate that you should mention the peppered moth.

For the claim that the relative abundance or scarcity of one of the two main varieties of peppered moth in certain environments proved evolution has long ago been proved to have been a deliberate scientific fraud.

Here's one of many references:

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1873

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Old Nick on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 14:55

Mr Bennett - first you quote Darwin to support your argument, then you attempt to debunk him in your next post. Now, is Darwin right or wrong?

Why, wrong of course!! He was a stupid old duffer who knew nothing about anything, unlike you Mr Bennett who is an expert on so many matters, such as how life began, what happened to Madeleine McCann, cadaver dogs, DNA, polar bears, global warming etc. You are a marvel Mr B, and no mistake!!

Old Nick

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01
Age : 50
Location : Hades

View user profile

Back to top Go down

2009: An outstanding year for creationism

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 15:02

@Old Nick wrote:Mr Bennett - first you quote Darwin to support your argument, then you attempt to debunk him in your next post. Now, is Darwin right or wrong?
To put it briefly, Darwin was dead right in what he said in the first place about the impossibility of the eye having evolved.

The second part of what he wrote, published by 'vaguely', is basically a load of deceptive waffle designed to give the unthinking the impression that something as complex as the eye could have, might have, I know it sounds impossible but, hey, you never know, it just possibly might have evolved bit by bit into the highly complex organ it is today.

A much more straightforward explanation, and one which accords perfectly with science, is that God gave Adam a perfectly formed eye to begin with.

As more and more people are realising; indeed the 150th anniversary of the 'Origin of Species' and the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth has been a bad year for evolution-believers and a much better one for creation-believers:

http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/2009-represented-an-outstanding-year-for-creationism/

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Old Nick on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 15:26

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Old Nick wrote:Mr Bennett - first you quote Darwin to support your argument, then you attempt to debunk him in your next post. Now, is Darwin right or wrong?
To put it briefly, Darwin was dead right in what he said in the first place about the impossibility of the eye having evolved.

The second part of what he wrote, published by 'vaguely', is basically a load of deceptive waffle designed to give the unthinking the impression that something as complex as the eye could have, might have, I know it sounds impossible but, hey, you never know, it just possibly might have evolved bit by bit into the highly complex organ it is today.

A much more straightforward explanation, and one which accords perfectly with science, is that God gave Adam a perfectly formed eye to begin with.

As more and more people are realising; indeed the 150th anniversary of the 'Origin of Species' and the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth has been a bad year for evolution-believers and a much better one for creation-believers:

http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/2009-represented-an-outstanding-year-for-creationism/

It's clear that the first part of the Darwin quote was a rhetorical set up for the second part of the quote and that to just quote the first part without the second part is somewhat to misinterpret and misrepresent what Darwin actually meant. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention at all Mr B!! Anyway, best not to quote Darwin at all to support your views Mr B - he was just a silly billy know-nothing with a long beard.

Old Nick

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01
Age : 50
Location : Hades

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Old Nick on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 15:41

What you may not be aware of is that before Adam and Eve gave in to temptation and ate that scrummy fruit, all the animals that roamed the Earth were vegetarians, even the snakes and spiders, lions and tigers. It was only because of that silly couple's fruit misdemeanour that carnivores were invented. Not a lot of people know that.

Old Nick

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01
Age : 50
Location : Hades

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Old Nick on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 15:43

Oh - and they were all immortal, I forgot to mention that bit.

Old Nick

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01
Age : 50
Location : Hades

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Darwinism is a religious dogma that stifles scientific debate

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 15:57

Letter 18 December 2009 in 'Sierra Vista Herald'

QUOTE

To the Editor:

Local Darwinists again are defending naturalism, a philosophy that excludes a Creator, under the guise of science. Creationists are supposedly ignorant of the so-called facts. Well, consider some facts of their philosophy. An “anti-creationist” generally believes: (1) nothing produces everything; (2) non-life produces life; (3) randomness produces fine-tuning; (4) chaos produces information; (5) unconsciousness produces consciousness; (6) non-reason produces reason.

These ideas, if true, are miracles. Such atheistic “miracles” are not science, only foolish prattle against obvious truth (See Romans 1:18-23). More faith is required to believe naturalism than to believe God’s manifold evidence. Life exhibits more than an appearance of design. Life exhibits obvious design. This is why polls show most people believe in a Creator in spite of massive Darwinian propaganda.

One letter writer claims the second law of thermodynamics applies “loosely, if at all, to open systems” such as the Earth’s biosphere, due to the sun’s energy. Darwinists concocted this disingenuous claim years ago. Instead, consider the truth: The sun’s energy is a necessary condition for biological order to increase or growth to occur, but even the sun’s energy is not sufficient. We see the results of the second law all around us. Everything ultimately wears out, dies and decays. The Earth’s biosphere constantly battles the harmful rays of the sun.

Biological exceptions occur when raw energy is directed by an information system such as DNA. Energy alone cannot produce babies, seeds or cells. No amount of time or raw energy can transform chemicals into highly complex DNA. To believe otherwise is to believe in miracles.

Another writer claims “most fossils” are intermediate or “missing links.” I doubt you’ll find a paleontologist who agrees. Many paleontologists express frustration with a lack of bonafide transitional forms, although millions of fossils have been found. Darwinists cannot explain how most of the world’s phyla suddenly appeared in the so-called Cambrian explosion. They have faith they’ll eventually figure it out. Creationists believe that God, using processes we don’t understand, created life from nonliving chemicals. Although this cannot be proven scientifically, creation still makes far more sense than Darwinist “just so” stories.

I agree that we should “keep religious dogma of all kinds out of our public school textbooks.” Naturalism (or Darwinism), by its very nature, is a religious dogma. Such philosophy does nothing to advance the cause of true science and in fact stifles scientific debate.


Dave Ballew, Sierra Vista

UNQUOTE

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Slartibartfast on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 19:18

You're still not going on about irreducible complexity, Tony?
This was comprehensively dismantled in the Kitzmiller trial.
In fact all the creationist arguments were taken apart in that trial.
ANd you're posting on DNA is way off the mark if you don't mind me saying.
Tony, it's not up to people to disprove that there are things like talking serpents and donkeys it's up to you to prove that there are such things.
I notice that you use the bible to prove what is written in, err.....the bible.

Slartibartfast

Posts : 135
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Guest on Thu 31 Dec 2009 - 19:50

@Slartibartfast wrote:You're still not going on about irreducible complexity, Tony?
This was comprehensively dismantled in the Kitzmiller trial.
In fact all the creationist arguments were taken apart in that trial.
ANd you're posting on DNA is way off the mark if you don't mind me saying.
Tony, it's not up to people to disprove that there are things like talking serpents and donkeys it's up to you to prove that there are such things.
I notice that you use the bible to prove what is written in, err.....the bible.
big grin big grin

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by littlepixie on Fri 1 Jan 2010 - 19:12

@Old Nick wrote:What you may not be aware of is that before Adam and Eve gave in to temptation and ate that scrummy fruit, all the animals that roamed the Earth were vegetarians, even the snakes and spiders, lions and tigers. It was only because of that silly couple's fruit misdemeanour that carnivores were invented. Not a lot of people know that.

I knew it Old Nick and the bible also says they will become vegetarian again.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by vaguely on Sat 2 Jan 2010 - 16:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@vaguely wrote:I can't be bothered to argue. Me and the peppered moth are off to Tesco.
It's highly appropriate that you should mention the peppered moth.

For the claim that the relative abundance or scarcity of one of the two main varieties of peppered moth in certain environments proved evolution has long ago been proved to have been a deliberate scientific fraud.

Here's one of many references:

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1873

Actually no, it has been re-bunked. I think the reason given for the original debunking is that it makes the theory of evolution so simple to understand that it enables anybody to see the logic and that might scare creationalists in to needing to debunk it.

It seems a little defensive to rubbish his work so. Do you really think that if people understand how the world was formed that they will decide that Christianity is pointless? I don't think so. In fact I should think that if it was accepted that the bible was written in a time of ignorance of the world then more people would be willing to accept it for what it is as they wouldn't have to suspend belief in order to accept the valuable lessons within.

____________________
and on day six God created the non-carbon triple duplicate complaint form.

vaguely

Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Laffin Assasin on Fri 5 Feb 2010 - 0:00

@Majic wrote:Small point, but their stastistical data is incomplete and they have been found to making some of it up

APIPHANY LIMITED
9 William Street
Grays
Essex RM17 6DY

can you enligten me about this company ?

You've been found to be making things up in the past, IIRC.

Does the above company have "liability insurance" ?

Laffin Assasin

Posts : 605
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Climate change guru Pachauri makes a fortune from carbon-trading business deals

Post by Get'emGonçalo on Fri 5 Feb 2010 - 16:50

Open email to Laffin posted on Chaos Raptors

Laffin,

that depends on what your interest is in Apiphany, are you wanting to look at the situations vacant or express an interest in utilising the services. Alternatively are you publishing these details in an attempt to harass the individual ?

Whatever you think you are stumbling onto, it's significance or relation to the Madeleine McCann investigation, I can assure you that you are well and truly mistaken. That company is run by a colleague of mine and is purely a technical services company. None of the people at his company would welcome a communication from any of you asking them about their involvement in the Madeleine McCann case, or any threats you would care to issue to them. He does not deserve to be dragged into this nor does his family.

It is not just myself you seem to have a habit for posting personal details about, but others who are completely unrelated to the McCann forums. Is it not a fair statement to make that you will go after absolutely anyone that you see fit and is purely at your discretion. You have posted their family home addresses, posted pictures of their families and of them, on the 3 Arguidos you actively encouraged other members to go to these addresses. Do you not understand that the potential threat of your activities and the obvious distress that these people and their families are put through because of you making their private details public ?

In whatever capacity I am able to respectfully request on behalf of these people and my colleagues, can you please cease all cyber stalking and harassment of members of forums, of my colleagues and the McCann family.

To desist entirely from posting up their personal details, the details of their families and any other private information that you have obtained from legitimate or privileged sources.

I am speaking with web masters of various sites and they have agreed to uphold this right for their members to not be attacked, intimidated or bullied by any other members, including yourself. Any posts that do contravene this policy will be deleted. At present there are only two forums that are not honouring this policy, the New 3 Arguidos website run by [removed] and [removed] and the Missing Madeleine forum run by [removed]. I still request that you do not take advantage of these forums and their lack of appropriate moderation and use them for the specific reasons to attack people.

To advise you, I have bbc'd on this email various interested parties so there is a record that I have formally requested that you stop these activities.

Thank you for your attention in this matter



Update to this email: I have now been advised through a third party that the Missing Madeleine forum as mentioned in the email above will now monitor any posts that attack members of the community or their families in what is called "outing". People who have in the past employed this tactic have done so in an attempt to intimidate and bully other members off the internet.

Additional Update: The site admin over at the New 3 Arguidos website have now confirmed that they also will not tolerate any members or their families personal details being published on the forum and will operate a strict policy of removing any content that falls into this category.

------------

Would this be the same Majic who is a member of JATYK where personal details are posted up and where they conspire with professional photographers to set someone up for Carter Ruck?

daft

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7106
Reputation : 2494
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum