The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Frauds

Frauds

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
First it was climate scientist and now its another scientist ensuring the data fits the models.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/fraud-sours-findings-on-health-benefits-of-red-wine/story-e6frg8y6-1226243026444

'Now Dr Das has been sacked by his employer, the University of Connecticut, having been found to have falsified or fabricated data on at least 145 occasions over seven years, possibly throwing into doubt an entire body of knowledge on the multiple health benefits of red wine, including on the cardiovascular system.'

It must be ego with these guys.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 January 2012 12:15:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the golden rule
if it sounds too good to be true
it likely isnt...but heck lets look at booze

they say a nip a day is good for ya
so ten nips must be better...[right?]

so many others come to mind..but i will continue with booze[not the lyting science mob]..for sale to the highest grant

jesus is said to have turned water into wine
[given the vile use of the stuff...plus noting human love
of anyone giving their vice the nod...the real intended meaning of this and other important parrables is lost..

jesus clearly earlier says...its not my time
in other words WHATEVER is made of this day
it has nuthin to do with me

anyhow..the unthinkable happens..and the booze runs out
[so no doudt who ever penned this record...has not full common sense ability..and like the feeding of the 4000/5000...missed the true meaning]

and that is key...what is the true teaching of jesus saying
its nought to do with me..heck..i couldnt careless..if you gave the drunks that handwash water...[and again wanders off..saying its not you its me...but this [parrable isnt about me]

no host would dare offer you..the finest wine
from a toilet...[and the handwash jars..are to all intent..unclean]

the serrvants..didnt want their master to loose faith
so they took the best wine..from the masters stash

heck..you know wine buffs..[this came from the thrird row,,on the eastern side harvested early morning..[etc etc]

they would instantly say
'this came from a toilet'

so the masters..by not knowing the ways of the seervant..wwere decieved[remain decieved]...and with no handwash jars on the mount
all did indeed eat..[all they wished]

cause with unclean hands..they didnt wish to eat
but shared the food they too had brought..so the increase was noted

note the seating arrangement
sitting oppisite each other
so anmy who did eat..would be cast out..of the church[temple]
for this violation of ritual...[be teqnicly unclean]

ie what science currently is
has slowly been subverted over too
ie into the cash..

capitalists have seized the science
just like they stole...everything else too
including the church
Posted by one under god, Friday, 13 January 2012 7:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
most know..that i love science..
[as the means to better know..of the work's of our good..[god]

but frauds
is such a general catch cry
[and few are going to care much beyond a few..who groan..

[.not our lies back into our faces again]..
so lets broaden..the frauds..
to fraud prevention's

Goldman's Latest PR Headache
Has To Do With Islamic Bonds
http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-draws-criticism-over-islamic-bond-issuance-2012-1

Goldman Sachs is facing fresh controversy,
this time in the Islamic world,..Reuters reports.

The claim sparking the outrage:..in the prospectus for an Islamic bond,..Goldman cited at a number of religious scholars..as potent*ially..approving the issuance.

Now,three of those scholars have yet to reply to requests for approval..and two say they have not even seen the prospectus..for the transaction.

Goldman's advisor on the deal,Asim Khan,
said this did not impact the sharia credentials of the issuance, because the scholars in question..were only listed as..*potential approvers


Remember what Goldman Sachs..did to Libya?
GS "lost" 98% of Libya's investment..and never
had to pay it back..because of the subsequent invasion!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-lost-98-of-libyas-1-3b-sovereign-wealth-fund-investment/

the fraud research!

that leads to scams..like this
well lets just follow the money

and retain control over the assets
plus the family trusts..their hidden into

FRAUD IS FRAUD
its time we were stopped
from being forced to swallow any [all]..of it
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13047&page=0

true science
needs diss-closure[faulsifyables..]
true govt thwarts fraud..not subverts it..lol..into a new tax

that if refuted refute the theory
[and its affects into govt laws]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhVclDp5IOA&feature=player_embedded

how about the lies of big pharma
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2085585/Parabens-Chemical-everyday-items-needs-investigation-scientists-discover-tumours-ALL-breast-cancer-patients.html

like i tried to diss-cuss here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4914&page=0

go figure..the appoligists...*dont got science fact

they got belief..
in quasi infalability..
of their faulse godheads..in lab coats

capital hunger spin merchants..in white coats..
and peer based ranking rankling the masses...into faulse gods
[and science peer based peerage belief systems]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036&page=0
Posted by one under god, Friday, 13 January 2012 8:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
remember when
the poles are melting

Trapped in ice:..Alaska fuel convoy moves just 50 FEET in a day...
and giant ice wall blocks harbour..for crucial delivery
http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2012/01/trapped-in-ice-alaska-fuel-convoy-moves.html

how is that northward passage comming
must be able to sail north...lol

small twists..now
result in big turns..down the track..[ho-ho ckysticks anyone]
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-climategate-emails-about-cash-for.html

bayer...no
our pesitcides..arnt killing the bees
here is some cash..for the govt aidgency
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/usda-ignores-pesticide-ravaging-bee.html

the school to prison pipeline
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/creating-lifelong-customers-school-to.html
the usa way..to exploit
the work of drug slaves in privatised capitalist prisons
trading their shares on the public markets

placeobo works better than antidepresants
http://www.naturalnews.com/034625_placebo_depression_antidepressants.html

WOW..wonder what the placeobo was

or who..the liar was
that assured you they work best

more i would post at that other toopic
[they ignore at their own peril]

guardicil silly
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/105999

notice the kids swearing of late?
http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/150087/37/Update-on-Tourettes-Like-Illness-in-Leroy

but we would be remiss..to not see..how far
some will go..to
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-dead-north-korean-scientists-are-a-wonderful-thing-2011-10

to stop good science..
[or science yet others call 'bad']

note the religeouse nutters again
peer revieuw..both a hinderance and a danger..to fresh origonal thinking..

[gnosis]
[is not the agnosis..of fresh fact]

ya just gotta be suss ..on research
that says its safe...to drink others wastes
one tiny error..can have epi-demonic result

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085351/Toilet-tap-Panel-recommends-Americans-drink-waste-water-combat-future-shortages.html#ixzz1jCcebjMb
Posted by one under god, Friday, 13 January 2012 9:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I can't be bothered trying to decipher all that. Hit a nerve though, runner, I'll give you that.

Ego, and finance I reckon too. Most get grants - without being in the industry but I believe that's how it works mostly - to advance knowledge. Without advancement you become redundant, in all meanings of the word.
Posted by StG, Friday, 13 January 2012 8:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
science by consensus rather than by science is all the go.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 14 January 2012 9:21:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and wether they read it or not
the truth keeps comming

The Virginia AG Kenneth Cuccinelli..wants the documents from Mann, who formerly worked at the University of Virginia.

Cuccinelli is attempting to determine..if Mann was involved in defrauding Virginia taxpayers..in his requests for grants
http://epaabuse.com/4343/news/virginia-ag-office-argues-for-michael-mann-climategate-documents/

to fund his questionable research

Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100129892/global-warming-red-faced-climatologist-issues-grovelling-apology/

This "Even though I was wrong
I'm still right" syndrome

afflicts a lot of people in the climate alarmist community. But then, you can hardly blame them for their wilful self-delusion and glib complacency..for they seem to operate in a bubble

*in which there are
*no punishments for failure.

The classic example is Paul Ehrlich who lost a famous bet on "scarce resources" with the late economist Julian Simon (aka the "Doomslayer" because he was so good at confounding environmentalists' hysterical scaremongering

*using actual scientific data
http://www.cancergnosis.com/Chemical%20Chemotherapy/Side%20Effects.htm
as opposed to computer projections).

linked warming hoax..to evolution hoax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/13/teachers-support-climate-change-lessons
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 14 January 2012 10:18:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming is real, instead of reading every opinion ever written about it , i suggest you just read one scientific site, to get your beliefs from. NASA , If you say nasa is incorrect about global change, there is not much hope for you. The biggest fraud this world has ever seen is religion.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 15 January 2012 10:29:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> science by consensus rather than by science is all the go. <<

Runner, you have no idea what ‘scientific consensus’ means. Science is not a faith-based religion, the likes of which you and ‘one under god’ evangelise.

Quoting in context the Academy of Science:
“Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial and scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers (e.g. Kenneth Cuccinelli, OUG) are typically driven by special interests or dogma (e.g. the ‘religious right’, runner), not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The IPCC and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes.”
Cont’d
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 15 January 2012 6:00:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d
When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington (or Melbourne) does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats (a.k.a. Cuccinelli) of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.

Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.” End quote.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 15 January 2012 6:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonnet

I agree with your statement

'Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling'

That is why your summation of the earth's beginning is so unscientific. The evolving evolution myth certainly does not meet your definition of science. It does however meet the defintion of faith or pseudo science.

You also mention computer modelling which in the case of the warming myth varies and has also been proven to be fraudulent. Failed predictions by the warmist high priest certainly confirm the deceit by many warmist 'scientist'.

Everyone knows that many times funding is tied to consensus science. The warming myth is clear evidence of that.
Posted by runner, Monday, 16 January 2012 10:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rummer,

Vacuous assertions and deliberate distortions by faith based bible-bashers is not science - it's obscene.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 16 January 2012 11:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot the most serious "assault" on climate science has been made by those so called scientists you admire so much. It's called climate gate 2.0, for want of a better name.

Please tell me you have read at least some of the emails involved. If you have avoided reading them, in fear of what you might find, than no discussion is worth having. That would put you into the "none so stupid as he who doesn't want to know" category. I would hate to have to think that of you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 16 January 2012 11:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot you write

'Vacuous assertions and deliberate distortions by faith based bible-bashers is not science - it's obscene. '

It is not Creationist who have had to hide frauds, change textbooks and not even blush over the last 50 years. Your arrogant assertions are typical of the warmist tactics of silencing any thing that shows the idiotic nature of consensus science. Your billions of year dogma is a fine example of that. You have the nerve to call creationist obscene. Quite ironic really.
Posted by runner, Monday, 16 January 2012 7:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,
Tales dreamed up by ignorant nomadic iron-age desert dwellers to explain the inexplicable are no "proof" of anything.

Interesting that you point to some vague scientific inconsistency to disprove something but offer no scientific proof in return to support your alternative version.

Your logic is that if there is some conflict in a theory such as evolution then it obviously follows that a white-bearded man did it all in seven days about 8,000 years ago. What's more, you know why and how and even what He looks like. Without evidence, that sounds somewhat arrogant.

There are two other things in the universe that have only theoretical explanations.

However Light and Gravity both appear to exist regardless of us not yet being able to completely understand everything about them.
Posted by rache, Monday, 16 January 2012 9:08:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache you write

'Your logic is that if there is some conflict in a theory such as evolution then it obviously follows that a white-bearded man did it all in seven days about 8,000 years ago'

at least you are honest enough to acknowledge the theory of evolution. I have never disputed that it takes faith to believe in our Creator. Just happens the facts support that faith far more than the evolution fantasy.
Posted by runner, Monday, 16 January 2012 9:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache/quote..""However Light and Gravity..both appear to exist regardless of us not yet being able to completely understand everything about them.""

yes...amasing things
light...[emmission of individual photon particles
by specifidc events...rel;easing photons in waves]

photons..of them selves unseen
untill they are reflected..off something
allowing us to see...
everything..[able to be seen..via the photonic spectrum]

gravity...[more of the same
attracting..the same..shall be a given]
the more you got..the more you attract..till in time ya is too fat[big]..and capture even the photonic emmissions...and other black stuff [matter]..we cant see..

i was facinated about how..'science
described the random elctron motion..within a containment...
causes presure...by them..lol..bumping against the sides

how i envisioned it is the orbital fields
forced to interact..with other orbital fields
[as more air molicules get pumped in...the 'orbital fields'
or rather orbit path..of the electrons take...

gets bumped down
to a lower orbit[causing ultimatly a change of state]

just as cooling would achieve

releasing the molicules...is like heating
allowing the orbiting part..into a higher orbit

[plus the weight..of these electrons..being closer or further...increasing/decreasing their massed affects..[as they move in
its like a skater doing their spin trick]

with little fact we can make great undwerstandings
[let there be light...is a rather important basis..for life
and darkness..[nuthin]..must preceed somethin[like light]

but nuthing...comes from nuthin
life comes from life[i can prove this]
can you prove life came from nuthin..[or name how science 'says'..life was begat

[something must preceed something
cause/affect...no cause..no affect]
science claims fact..so reveal the fact
or admit ya got theories...you 'sell' as fact

pretending to know
yet not able to explain..!
l;et alone name..the first ..[begining]

well thats deciete
[conning only those
needing to be decieved..[atheoists]
anti-god mob...

the anti knowledge lot][agnostics]
we can find agreement in athiest-isms..[in rejecting any creed
as containing any fullsome faulsifyable truth]..

it is what it is...[a huh?-man invention..
[just like the THEORY..of evilootion]
science claims proof

lets hear it
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 7:28:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen
If I reply then the inference is I take you seriously (I don’t) and you’re on to something.
If I don’t reply then the inference is I’m dodging and you’re on to something (you’re not).

For the benefit of runner:

If scientists use raw data and don’t correct for systematic biases, it is evidence of “fraud”.
If scientists correct for the systemic biases, they’re fudging the data and it is evidence of “fraud”.

If scientists say the science is settled (they don’t) they’re dogmatists.
If scientists say it isn’t, then clearly the so-called “sceptic” position is tenable (it isn’t).

And so on and on ad nauseam.

Hasbeen, visit all the “sceptic’ blogs you like, but the science is the science – whether you believe it or not.

Ok, so the so-called “sceptics” hack a whole lot of emails and launch a campaign of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation and character assassination and, despite multiple investigations showing the science of global warming is valid, they do it all again without nothing new to add.

Sheesh, even poor ol’ deaf, dumb and blind Freddie knows that the timing of the ‘releases’ were ideologically motivated.

.

Rummer
“I have never disputed that it takes faith to believe in our Creator. Just happens the facts support that faith far more than the evolution fantasy.”

Facts about a "Creator", what facts?

runner, which part of this don't you understand:

>> our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth) ...and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).

Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.

Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. <<

Science is NOT a faith based religion as you assert, rummer.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 7:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I know Bonmot, I promised myself I would not bother with you, but I can't help myself, I feel sorry for you.

It must be awful, knowing deep down that you are wrong, & have been conned.

It must be even worse to know you have no choice but to follow the path, even knowing it leads to failure.

Still, it was nice of you to admit you have no intention of reading anything that could weaken that desperate hold you have on that unrealistic hypothesis of global warming.

Do be careful. We have just seen that even an ocean liner can appear to be still afloat & sound, long after the disaster is well established. Thus is it with AGW, & those who have bet their careers on it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:38:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Delusions of grandeur, Hasbeen?

Where did I admit that I “have no intention of reading anything that could weaken that desperate hold you have on that unrealistic hypothesis of global warming.” (sic)

Fake sceptics often make stuff up, distort and misrepresent what other people say.

To be clear;

A whole lot of emails were "hijacked" and a premeditated campaign of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation and character assassination followed. Despite multiple investigations showing the science of global warming valid, the fake sceptics did it all again - without anything substantively new to add, I must add.

How do I know this?

Let me make it simple for the simple minded, Hasbeen … I have read some of the emails, on WUWT.
Which should lay to rest the lie that I don’t read anything from another point of view. Real sceptics do but going by your comments, you don’t. You appear to wear the fake sceptic tag with pride, Hasbeen.

I digress. Yes, Anthony Watts – the bastion of fake scepticism.

Examples:

Watts & Co tried to blame ‘global warming’ on bad station siting. Turns out he is wrong.

Watts & Co tried to blame it on ‘dropout’ of reporting stations. Turns out he is wrong.

Yep, Watts & Co could hardly contain their worship for the Berkeley (BEST) team to investigate global temperature estimates – even funded by some notable fake sceptics. Yep, they were all ‘cock-a-hoop’ the new estimates would prove that the ‘other’ estimates were fraudulent.
Reading this, rummer?

Well, Watts even proclaimed that he would accept whatever the BEST results showed, even if it contradicted him.

It did, and Watts & Co do the fang-dango … twisting and turning, refusing to accept BEST’s conclusions and even launching into multiple tirades to discredit the new BEST effort.

The rest is history and just shows how weak the fake sceptic position is.

Hasbeen, your last back-handed slur to a most tragic event is no different to runner trying to tarnish all climate scientists to the despicable actions of that wine researcher – typical actions of those in denial.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 12:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bornmute quote..""and that today’s organisms
evolved from ones..living in the past..(the theory*..of evolution).""

mate lets begin at the beginning

please name..the first life
[what species...what genus*]

please name what *new genus..it evolved into

see mate the thing is..without proof..ya just got facts[opinion/theo-ry]

that yet others
have blind faith in..

see..if you cant explain
you take it on trust..[to wit ya got..*'faith']

so please name/names
what signle mutation..created a [any]..new genus

but its only too easy
to say..you got proof..when ya got nuthin

""Even as these..[proofs?]..are overwhelmingly accepted""
as proved..can you provide
your own proof..lol

no you cant
you will set-up some kiddie site and say here...lol

but mate..lets just have the names
name names...then explain!..this first eviloootion

lol..""by the scientific community""

run by exclusive all knowing..[lol]..peers[lol]

just like the priest hoods..except they
judge things they dont know..[via measures/process they cant comprehend..]..

science is a general lable..not a specific proof
its a talisman..ignorant use
to take credit from god..

we KNOW one thing..for sure
science never evolved!..any new genus..EVER*

that natural/selection..isnt..a science method
that survival..of the fittest..isnt science

[its clever buzzwords..use
just like the warming hoax/spin words

""fame still awaits anyone..who
could show these theories""..lol
..""to be wrong.""

state ya theories
present..YOUR proofs

i will demolish ya theory..
when ya give..some actual..definitive PROOF!

""Science is NOT..a faith based religion""

lol
no its a general lable..[that prooves nuthin]
just like "religeon's"..just like warming/cooling hoaxes

be specific

please
name what 1st..what 2de

how hard can it be to give ya sci-ence proof
if its science..its repeatable..[having random facts..isnt proof]

join the dots
ya got nuthin

every genus..has huge gaps
not one is coverable..in a micro evolution

what is..the half warmblood/half cold blood..genus named

ya got nuthin
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 3:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps one should behave like a real sceptic and explore some real science journals, for example:

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, or

Molecular Biology & Evolution, or

Evolution, or

Genetics, or

Royal Society of London (Series B), etc.

Perhaps then, one could then learn how to;

. Not write gibberish

. Form an argument

. Critique a hypothesis

. Understand science without one's faith based dogma

ps & btw oug,

you may even try to distinguish the difference between scientific evidence (as opposed to ‘proof’) and philosophy
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 5:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot for what it is worth, I found your first post well put and logical. Frankly I couldn't have said what you have better.

It is a shame that you find yourself boxed in, in the religious lather of a few stone-agers.

If one was to pinpoint the most berserk and obscene attempt at fraud in the guise of science, you would have to identify intelligent design theory. Religion's way of combating the facts.
Posted by thinker 2, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 6:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
merci beaucoup, thinker 2

However, I do not feel "boxed in".

On the contrary, it is the 'god-botherers' of the world that are boxed in. Ergo, it is impossible for them to think that they are complicit in destroying God's creation, hence their fervent denial.

I totally agree with your interpretation of 'intelligent design' - not science at all, imho.

Nevertheless, it raises an important issue - I have much respect for the science of one well known, and genuine, sceptic (in the scientific sense). However, he has much 'inner' stress because he fervently believes in 'creationism' - his religious leanings 'influence' his scientific bias. Sad, really.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 7:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it is as i said...born mute
you got nuthing

you googled some science mags
cause you got no info..of your own

hence you reveal
you got faith
in mags

see how dumb that really is
ya got faith mate

you didnt name the first
but named the magazines

so here we go ol mate
which ones name the first life genus
which name the first evolution...

[thing is they and thus you
dont got no clue]

thank you
for proving your ignorance..on the topic is complete
replete without fact...

not naming the names...lol

ignorance..claiming genious..
in lue of knowing genus

you name lol..names
[spin arms...of science]
cause you got no names...

[thats like claiming to know religeon..
yet unable to give reasons for your religeous beliefs..by chapter nor verse]

so you think your clever..
but only by those dumber than yourself
more ignorant..on just egsactly what ya theory says
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 6:49:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its ok born_mute..NO ONE KNOWS...this first life
hence the absurdity..of ya own..*belief..in a theory

heck dont take my word..for it
here is what anthonye..just wrote on..another thread

""definition of a theory.
In science..an hypothesis becomes a theory
only when it meets..certain criteria.""

i say
they havent been met..{ever]

""
1...It must be possible
to make predictions..based upon the hypothesis; and..""

thus bornmute..what is your predictions?

""2...(This is critically important)..it
*must tbe possible to design..and conduct experiments
based upon..those predictions..""

..""and the predictions
*MUST be verified..*every time.""'

ok mate..so
what ya got?

""If a verified experiment..produces results
contrary to the prediction -..even if only under specific circumstances -..

then the theory*
must be modified.""

but you couldnt even claim
a working hypothesis..let alone a theory[lol]

STATE YA THEORY..in ya own words

""Only when..an hypothesis..*meets these conditions
can it be called..a theory.""

go ahead
name names ol man
not maggi-zeen arty-icle's

slightly modified words continue

Thus,..your idea of..[evilootion]..is
a perfectly valid hypothesis
but it is not considered a theory..

because you cannot design and conduct
an experiment..to verify your prediction about..{the next genus to evolve]..nor state declare..lol..what it evolves into

plus ya cant name first
nor,..second..[see the joke ol bloke?]

Thus the{THEORy of evolution..of genus]..
remains an hypothesis..and cannot be given
the same weight...in science...not even..as a theory....

LET ALONE FAULSIFYABLE..[science]..*FACT
it needs to be..a science

[but its all greek to you
who know not even..the base of ya theory..
you claim to support..with your BELIEFS...[lol]

""Essentially,..an hypothesis
is an untested belief system.""

lol

""We can,..for example,
hypothesize that there is life[edited]
but it is not a theory..as we cannot experimentally verify it...

..Once this difference is understood
it might help to clear up your concern
as you are now dealing..*with a belief system..and not a theory.""

lol
""We are all perfectly entitled..to believe

what we choose,
but it cannot be called a theory..

*until it meets..the described requirements.""

and it dont..!

""Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au ""

yep..great stuff mate..!
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 9:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems OUG is not a creationist at all:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

"Evolution is both fact and theory" is a statement appearing in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed to clarify misconceptions about evolution primarily in response to creationist statements that "evolution is only a theory".

“In the context of the OUG's "creationist" claim, theory is used in the vernacular, meaning an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation. OUG's purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, OUG's claim cannot be substantiated. Indeed, evolution as theory refers to the scientific (as opposed to OUG’s vernacular) definition of theory – a salient point he can’t (or doesn't) comprehend.

In the scientific sense, a theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations. For example, the germ theory of disease was similarly highly controversial when first proposed, yet it was validated in the late 19th century and is now a fundamental part of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. In another example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth.

Similarly, the theory of evolution unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Moreover, the scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. For example, natural selection is an example of a theory of evolution.

Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within palaeontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.”

OUG wouldn’t know this (obviously) because he hasn’t even looked at the research (as a real sceptic would) – he just asserts guff.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 10:20:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear...name calling in lue of facts
liklely a cut and past of some athiest rave

the link shut down my computer
frozen solid

so im finally back

to try the link again
but thought i would post something first
cause what i read of ya rave..well its a rave

"Evolution is both fact and theory"

lol...[the pers say so]
and im too dumb to explain why in mu own bonnie mute words

""statement appearing in numerous publications""'

wow[the same words egsactly..[rote?}

""on biological evolution.""

lol nice touch...adding in biological
to the spin of evolution

""The statement"'

this rote statement[spin]
lawyer crafted limitators

""is framed to clarify misconceptions""

lol

when ya face is rubbed in the fact
that ya theoryaint science...lol[my how clever]

but mate lets sumise what you said so far
relitive to the fraud..of micro evolution
as mechanism..lol..to macro evolution of new genus]

but back to ya spiel[in lue of science fact]

"""about evolution''[by the evolution PEERAGE]
..""primarily in response to creationist statements"""

ha ha ha ha ha

when we say UNREFUTABLY.."" that./."evolution is only a theory".""

lol
make it up as you go

this is a collusion top decieve
not explain fact

but my computers still acting funy
gotta go to se ya stinking link

not worth replying to ya destractions
in lue of naming names or mechanism's..or dna proof

just more spin
but will anilate it too in time

the joke is on ya theory
and the collusive lengths your pers will go

umise their words
no..instead you wave them like some sort of talisman
[just like the peers of the priest hood's...
wave their smoke into theit faithfull's eyes[mirors]

""OUG's purported intent..is to discredit
or reject the scientific credibility of evolution.""

no its up to you to present THE SCIENCE PROOFS
your still saying nuthin

thus..its YOUR..""claim cannot be substantiated.""

my claim is i can refute anything
you think proves...lol..even a single instance
of evolving...lol..of a new genus
Posted by one under god, Friday, 20 January 2012 2:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When a chicken wipes its cloaca with an onion, you know you're in trouble.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 20 January 2012 2:25:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it really was a turkey.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 20 January 2012 2:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok clever stuff
i read the page you linked to..[a whole book]
fairy-tale's..for adults..

BUT NAME NAMES..
where?

lol

quote..""Authors:
Committee on Revising Science and Creationism:

A View from the National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Authoring Organizations

Description:
How did life evolve on Earth?

The answer to this question can help us
understand our past and prepare for our future.

Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers,
polls show that many people turn away from science,
seeking other ...
Read More

Reviews:
"Any open-minded reader will become convinced that evolution is the only persuasive scientific explanation of the diversity of life on earth." -David C Kopaska-Merkel, Reports of the National Center for Science Education ...
Read More

Related Podcast:

lots a links"""""....

loldroll
read a dammmm book..lol
why have you read it?

on what page is the first life..the first evolved NEW GENUS

its peer revieuwed cccc rap

but mate WHAT PAGE HAS THE INFO ON IT..?

i read too many dumb links
put up by idiots who cant explain their BELIEF..in evolutions theories

so expect me to get lost in reading books that DONT KNOW EITHER..!

page numbers
chapets/verse
my ol mate numb mute
knowing nuthin...revealing nuthin

destracting like there is a reply

""the theory of evolution..unifies observations from fossils,
DNA sequences,..systematics,..biogeography,..and laboratory experiments."""

and it concludes..life from life
and that kids are the same genus as their parents

sheep bred sheep...fruit-fly breeds fruit-fly
same beeds sam genus..EVERYTIME

""the unifying power..of evolutionary theory""..lol

"Nothing in biology..makes sense""lol
""except in the light of evolution""'

and biology mechanisms discredit the theory
[ie we [peers]..cant prove anything of it..!'

""describes the causes of evolution,..""

yes chemicals that DAMAGE dna
or start..or stop certain developments process,..at key times
or not at al..but this proves just what egsactly

inames process not you
cause your spinning ya wheels

so here some..more...grass hope rrrr
Posted by one under god, Friday, 20 January 2012 2:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[all kill]..

or yet other mechisms..like limited diet...
change of habityat[season]..attractivness to other sex

ALL BELONGING TO NATURE
not science

science has a theory
but cant replicate its big finnish
a NEW genus...lol[so it resorts to more lies destractions

BUT IF YOU DONT NAME
you cant..make claim

""as distinct from//[lol]
""the more straightforward factual claim..that evolution occurs.""

the claim is SANS FACT applicable
to its main thesis
a NEW GENUS...!

""natural selection""
NOT A SCIENCE METHOD..or valid law
""is an example..lol..of a theory of evolution.""

what posable proof is nature doing
what science clearly isnt doing
natural..BELONGS TO GOD

natures selections...have been..""rigorously tested""

lol...if science is involved...
[observation...affects the affects observed]...
*..a quantum mechanics..affect/LAW?

if its nature selecting
its not science

"""and corroborated empirically""

by dubious expert peers...[ignorant fixed minded high priests of science faulse god head-ism..[evilooonytune's]

the oppisite to dead science method
is natures living nurture

""by scientific evidence from countless studies.""'

blah blagh blah
NAME NAMES..be scientificly accurate..!

or be revealed as a
decieved believer..in science THEO-ry

""new testable hypotheses""

please be specific
your generalisations get tedious

""OUG wouldn’t know this..(obviously)
because he hasn’t even looked at the research""

lol you silly boy..i ben reasearching since i was ten
i been looking to find passionatly..just how the heck GOD DONE IT

i love TRUE SCIENCE
[thus cant stand science fraud]
it get as in the way of the absolute truth of..theo gnosis

love ya too

[two eyes looking is two more
than once looked at the topic..with open minds/open hearts]

NOT..with childish BELIEFS
[trusting in a lie's]

knowing..loving knowing
how god dun it..so cleverly..from nuthin
that science failed to do..in the time of everything

alternate SCI-trance..high priests
peers...in frocks..[lies by ommision[and or text]

[decieving their igno-rant flock]
[away from the living loving good [god]

lies upon lies

FIRST MAKE JUST ONE LIKE IT
to wit proove it!
Posted by one under god, Friday, 20 January 2012 2:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another to be burned at the stake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPPpTvCJEgg

Question: is OUG a chicken or a turkey?
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 20 January 2012 3:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
neither
its a little girl

who claims to be a cri/mate scientist
[when climate/science is a delusion]

[there is no specificly..TOTALL science field
as climate science..]..like evolution..its disjointed joining together of other sciencves,..no one could be qualified in all of them

its a joining
of many other science fields..
into a DEFACTO science general heading..for other
true sciences..[taking they facts as true..having faith in their facts

lies built on lies
one lie..means not all fact is fact

sure loose science pure faith..in other peers
but diverted perverted
under a new generic lable

evolutionist..[or climatoliglist-ist]

who fell in love..with her teacher[peer]

adopted his peer-rage]..delusions
[the ice is melting..the polar bears are drowning]

while yet other true science..reports..the ice caps
is ever growing more thick[but her mind ids fixed on fixed [past/dead]..facts..not thye living reality right now[a growing ice pack]

think

lol
and your cure is a lol link?

but cant be botherd naming names[stating your fact]

so give me a stinking link..to a book and THEN a girl
cause ya stink link..didnt fully playout..i cant reach any conlusion

clever DIVERSION
your silence speaks highly that you need education
cause all ya got is a book/link...and nuthin

[and you think this links mindless pifflee
[half heard..means what proof
egsactly?"

[lol]

fill in..the blanks

my commentry
on the spin

[giddy girl]having a power moment
cant say much..on the rest..[unheard bit of tape]..

certainly no evidence/science proof..as regarding evolution
but the same spin/same system..is ab-used..in cl..cry-mate-change

i wil just note
you refuted nuthin
proved nuthin..[NAMED nuthin]?

but worse
this silly girl
still selling her idols tale..[delusions]
married to a preacher..[no doudt also..having faith lol
in 'the science' too

..as much as his wife
has her faiths..lol..in generic lables
her idols..she actually learned under...lol]

star struck

[then the vidio..stopped downloading]

but again
its disjoined facts..
assembled into..a new belief/system,[science]

[crime/mate science]

with its own peer revieuw..systems.
.to keep the creed [science]..pure

no doudt
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 21 January 2012 8:03:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, OUG exemplifies that the turkey is different in genus to the chicken.

Which came first?

OUG of course!

LOL
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 21 January 2012 8:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh born mute...[i do love you
when you push me to clarify that others ex-plain]

re the chicken or the egg
the facts are irrefutable..chicken come from egss]

so for a chicken..
somewhere

go find what laid the egg
or find out who created the egg

[and here too i have done extrnsive study..on eggformation
as the yolk accumulated album..as it spirals down the tube calcifying via ozmosis as it goes]

and so too have i studied how the scale of a chicken
can evolve into a feather...by the right chemical balance

so too have i studied the formatioon iof the feather growth ring
that births an ammasing floded flower like set of interlocking barbules...and studied the barbules and melinin[sometinmes even to be found on riocks[the melinin shapes..not dna]

but i feel as much as its fun to show off how much i know re what im talking about

so to is obvious
the lack of facts
you..lol..who believe in facts
YOU..actually grasp..

or can explain
for others to comprehend

anyhow you gave me chicken
i lead you back to the egg

now lead me back to the base of ya theory

the first evolution
of a new genus is?

the next one will be?
the next genus after homo
well thats post homo

now use ya science to decribe this posthomogenus
genotype and phenotype[prepare the mendalin ratios chart modifications that may require

but heck you got the 'sci-trance'

you explain

i only KNOW
god dun it

but heck
*YOU CLAIM SCIENCE

present it
oh disser of believer

a of a thiest...lead..ol mate
you got facts

lets hear em
[or the right question]
mine seem to be ridiculed or ignored
that you have been so patient..with ignoerant me is much appriciated

but recall...a wise man
can learn..*even from a fool

but the horse wont drink poluted water
cause it has menory..

and can think
before it takes a drink

[gods still quite/inner wisper]..
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 21 January 2012 9:28:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
see i so enjoy thinking
like think new zealand...no mammals..only birds

no snakes either
so birds cant come after [lol evolve]..from snakes
cause there is none naturally occuring in nz

ok maybe nz fossils
but nz is new earth
see we are on plates..but plate teqtonics is a trickery theory

see that big sea/ocian to our north
is where you will see growth rings..[a huge crack that ever grows..pushing the plates[because the truth is we live on an expanding earth]

as we decompress from the intital
big bang..we pased may presure times

everything is explanding
[even the measures we measure with]

se the thing is what grownups dont know
they make up..and by the time we are grown
we make up stuff..we dont want to do the hard yards learing fully too

cause even now really we dont really know..either

all i know is science lies..warming is lie
the frauds are extensive..collectivly we know more lie than true

thus ever so many frauds
comming back on you..to loving in ignorant beliefs
[sorry im raving]..

life is as you chose to believe
its affects good or not..in the end

its do as thy will
believe if you got it
give fact or oponion if yas got it

others facts
mean you got faith in that
and pers make sure...the creed that forms their honour[power]
once its gone..removes their power...[and the guilt asosiated with decieving others..away from love]..weighs heavey

this collective weight
in time reverses the big expantion
into the big pre big bang ...state...following the big collapse

if others cared
i would care more about how im write this

im only channeling thoughts as they flow past my mind
endless rivers of thought..each as silly aas the next
but made real...cause they were thought via me
as the flow of thought just drifted by

not my thought
just thoughts grasped briefly
as the river of thought silently glides by
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 21 January 2012 9:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Er, OUG ... please try.

I said which came 1st, the turkey or the chicken?
(different genus by the way)

Ergo, I did NOT say which came 1st, the chicken or the egg?
Despite your mind-numbing rant.

It is blatantly obvious that religious zealots like you only see what you want to see and only hear what you want to hear, Amen.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 21 January 2012 10:03:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alas, we too must restrain our tomatoes with a palm tree, even if the rabbits don't prefer it.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 21 January 2012 11:20:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i will excuse you..your blind sight

the genus issue[what came first]
mate that is..*YOUR SCIENCE..lol

your THEORY'$
CLAIM

not mine

you drongo
[near relation apparently]
lol ..theo-reticly..lol

its sad
ya dont grasp ya own theo-ry
realise what absurdities it claims

but you are just like all..the perty faithfull
ya swallowed the spin..[bait...took a bite of the tre of life lol

now slowly realising ya got nuthing

even ya own
are noticing it

no facts
means no theor-ry..[evolving or not]
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 21 January 2012 4:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok lets go onto
*the next FRAUD'$$$$

the Solyndra disaster;
then the BrightSource disaster;

now..FirstSolar (sometimes billed as the world's biggest solar company).(H/T Paul Chesser)...Perhaps one shouldn't gloat.

No doubt it is a bad,..sad thing when companies go under
taking billions..of taxpayer dollars with them...

But that,..in a way,
is the point.

*The money our governments have poured into the renewable Ponzi scheme has been squandered – and seen to be squandered – on such an epic scale that even the most purblind, state-addicted, left-leaning voter can have failed to notice that something isn't quite right here;
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/01/04/more-taxpayer-guaranteed-solar-job-losses-2011-closes

that maybe next time it might be an idea to let the market pick energy winners rather than leave it to government, which patently hasn't a clue.

3. We're on the lying liars' case. As we saw in Climategate and Climategate 2.0 the Warmist establishment – and that's everyone from the climate "scientists" at the CRU to the IPCC to the Royal Society to the EPA to the entire Obama administration – is so slippery and devious it makes Wormtongue look purer than Sir Galahad.

But these days they're so discredited that their bluster, appeals to authority and outright lies just don't seem to work any more.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100105725/rogue-trader-in-38-6-billion-green-jobs-fraud/

Take this brilliant analysis by Tim Worstall of some unutterable hogwash produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). They're lying. He shows they're lying. Thank you Tim!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/30/lying-with-numbers-green-energy-edition/

some great responses in comments
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100127634/ha-ha-warmist-losers-for-you-the-war-is-over
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 22 January 2012 8:07:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok clearly the roots of evolution
are unknown..[the theory stands on feet of clay]

see money can buy anything
when you got people claiming insane thing's
like the sky is falling/warning/evolving..well we know

that opinion
not fact

whats the adgenda*..?
capture the mind..you capture the body
Posted by one under god, Monday, 23 January 2012 9:48:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy