the accomplishments of creation " science "

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: testingtesting

Lol. I know nothing about these people other than the link in the op. I fail to see how the op relates the the site linked. Be they con artist or not they do not relate

I have nothing but contempt for these people but from the link I've got nothing to disagree with.

Happy birthday Mally!

a reply to: chr0naut

Surely a universe that began a finite time ago, has limitations on every scale and is all connected at a quantum level, even to the generation of the cosmological microwave background radiation (clearly showing the homogenity and isotropy of the universe), is clearly not an open system.

The 'time' you are referring to is before time existed, or entropy, or any of the physical laws as we know them existed. So no, it was 'clearly' neither an open system nor a closed system as we would 'ordinarily' experience such a thing.

That said, have you not heard of the discussion about multiverses? In an environment rife with multiverses, a new universe coming into existence is not operating in a closed system anymore than a star formation or a galaxy formation.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
All religions are a lie.

That explains a lot...

Religion and Science both have something in common I find very interesting.

They both have counterfeits.

Science like all other forms of religion pretends to be something it is not.

"Science" is now a Religion and just like religion, it ALWAYS lies.

Religion AND Science are all about HIDING the truth.

The false credibility behind both is sickening.

I recently wondered why it is that, seeing how people in general don't trust politicians, corporations, the media etc., why it is that 'scientists' apparently get a free pass from society. It's as though what these "false-prophets?" say is almost always believed. Put a white lab coat on anyone and automatically what they say is near gospel.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

"Gotta love how 'evolution theory' is historically demonstrated to be nothing but failed ancient mythology updated & repackaged with scientific lingo hijacked from Christian pioneers of science (Linnaeus, Ray, Mendel, Cuvier,etc), pushed by Freemasonic/Communist control of centralized gov't, universities, press, media & think-tanks backed by the satanic elite with their world Socialist revolution while 'Atheists' still cling to politically corrupt 'science' or point to imaginary 'evidence'." Source

Philip Collins explains how the Illuminati took control of science and determined our assumptions about the nature of reality. "The ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses."

In the article 'Toward a New Science of Life,' EIR journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons (Tennenbaum).

"Science" - The Matrix of Masonic Mind Control

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith. Unfortunately some scientists and academic professionals are not so noble and have perpetrated deliberate frauds and cover-ups of important discoveries.

Modern Scientific beliefs are based upon a leap of faith in the big bang theory. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Surely a universe that began a finite time ago, has limitations on every scale and is all connected at a quantum level, even to the generation of the cosmological microwave background radiation (clearly showing the homogenity and isotropy of the universe), is clearly not an open system.

The 'time' you are referring to is before time existed, or entropy, or any of the physical laws as we know them existed. So no, it was 'clearly' neither an open system nor a closed system as we would 'ordinarily' experience such a thing.

That said, have you not heard of the discussion about multiverses? In an environment rife with multiverses, a new universe coming into existence is not operating in a closed system anymore than a star formation or a galaxy formation.

I was not referring to the time before the universe. I was referring to this universe, that does now exist.

The Big Bang Singularity means that at one stage, everything in this universe touched everything else in the universe and beyond the outer boundary of the universe, there was nothing else affecting it. No matter was separate and it all existed within a boundary. That is the definition of a closed system.

Similarly, other calved universes in a multiverse are all individual closed systems too. There is no communication between such universes. Not to mention that there is nothing in physics that explains the process of creation of multiple universe mass objects, or that defines how and when such bifurcations should occur.

So, this universe, which by definition contains itself, is bounded. It is a closed system.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
it takes more faith.....to believe the odds of interstellar chance occurrances the science puts forth as far as conjecture to make their models viable.......than to believe God spoke it so marvelous and peopled with emotional loving sexyazz human beings

And they have the audacity to call it a science.

The reality is that Darwinism is actually a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

...the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.

When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

members.toast.net...

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded. ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton

"`Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

a reply to: Murgatroid

I would advise you to be more caeful of your cites and sources if you ever want to be taken seriously and not laughed at hysterically. Henry Makow and whoever Howard David Johnson is are not reliable sources. Frankly they're whackdoodles.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

A quote from the famous AngryCymraeg:

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Your cite-fu is lacking, young Padawan.

"RationalWiki" is about as unreliable as a source can possibly get.

If you want to believe the propaganda knock yourself out.

I simply choose not to...

"We all know that RationalWiki is a liberal propaganda site..." Link

"a horrible piece of establishment propaganda... littered with false statements and ad hominem. I imagine that the whole of the wiki is a collection of gatekeepers for consensus science and PTB doctrine...." www.fmotl.com...

"...anyone can anonymously write whatever they want (but correction of the tripe written will be considered “vandalism”!) RationalWiki is one of those sites. RationalWiki is a project of Trent Toulouse, who has the stated objective of “exposing conspiracy theories”. He once implied that he considers a conspiracy theory everything that disagrees with mainstream dogma, making RationalWiki a platform for anyone with an agenda to attack researchers struggling to bring important facts to public attention." owndoc.com...

"RationalWiki is now just another outlet for #FTBullies ideology... they are totally baboon property. Monkeys dancing for the organ grinder... the "talk" pages for their hatchet job/character assassination wiki entries show how utterly corrupt it is..." twitter.com...

"Their alternative weapon is called "rational wiki" (an oxymoron) and it is allegedly ran by a student named Toulouse, from Hamilton, Canada. He is as real as that shady guy who runs wikipedia.org, with an added character feature of inferiority complex. Of course, it is possible that he too does not exist (a made-up character), or that he has been co-opted by intelligence services, as they do draft students.

RationalWiki is a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website that is run by Ontario resident Trent Toulouse. RationalWiki is a wiki founded by secular humanists in response to Conservapedia. They regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. It is based on MediaWiki, like Metapedia. The wiki has around 4200 English pages middle of May 2010. The information is inaccurate and sparse. The wiki begs for donations. The site is extremely anti-Christian and anti-Conservative and promotes sodomy and gun restriction.

The website fraudulently portrays itself as being “rational”, and opposed to “pseudoscience”, yet promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational spiritual pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism. On top of such deceptiveness, Trent Toulouse solicits donations (on the website’s main page) under these false pretenses. That fits within the definition of criminal fraud." A note on "Rational Wiki"

"Some of the most untrue bunch of lies that could ever be written in the entire world were written by RationalWiki. They claim that they are the truth and the holy appointed protectors of science and their subjects. They do not tell the truth. RationalWiki is the biggest con job on the internet. It is the National Enquirer of skeptical thought.

They are like Stormfront for intellectual people that pimp a platform of hate and scorn for those that they hate, no matter how wrong and biased that they are and kudos for those that they DO like. RationalWiki is the most biased thing out there on the internet today. They are NOT rational or intelligent. RationalWiki is a fraud factory. It is a quack’s encyclopedia. They are pseudo-intellectual quackery at its finest. RationalWiki is a joke!" Source

Take, for example, the RationalWiki article on pseudoscience. One merely has to lightly read through it to see some of the most arrogant statements that can be made. ...there is no excuse for passing this kind of blithely arrogant and shallow material off as anything other than trash, and that’s not even dealing with the factual inaccuracies.

The entire site is plagued by trash (the only suitable term) of this nature. I have no doubts that RationalWiki is just a front for Left-Wing Progressivism (a type of Socialism, basically), based on the style of the writing and the methods of argumentation used.

RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination

a reply to: Murgatroid

No defence of Makow then? Exactly as I expected.
You and I have clashed in the past. I know exactly what you are. You are a creationist. Fair enough it's a free universe (and a vastly larger one than you will ever admit) but don't pretend that you have an open mind on science.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Now let's just ask you this, what are the accomplishment's of anti creationist's.

Come on give us a genuine full list and not just of supposed atheists whom often then turn out to not be atheist at all but mostly agnostic, there are just a few outspoken prick's whom usually happen to be best of friends with holocaust deniers as well.


You you KNOW there is no God and that there was NO creation, let's see your empirical evidence and proof or is it just that you BELIEVE there was no God and NO creation because that is actually something completely different to KNOWING now is it not.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

JFTR, I don't agree with a lot of what the creationist claim as truth.

a reply to: chr0naut

I was not referring to the time before the universe. I was referring to this universe, that does now exist.

The Big Bang Singularity means that at one stage, everything in this universe touched everything else in the universe and beyond the outer boundary of the universe, there was nothing else affecting it. No matter was separate and it all existed within a boundary. That is the definition of a closed system.

No. All definitions break down at the so-called "Big Bang Singularity". ALL definitions. At that time there is no 'this universe, that does now exist'. There is no time. There is no boundary. There is no system. I know this is difficult to comprehend, but there is NOTHING that has anything to do with our experience of the universe. There is not only no-thing, there is also nothing period.

Similarly, other calved universes in a multiverse are all individual closed systems too. There is no communication between such universes.

You have no evidence to support this assertion. For all you know black-hole/white-hole pairs may serve as conduits for energy/information between universes. The idea is certainly no more outlandish that anything else in quantum physics/mathematics/cosmology.

If there is a multiverse system, perhaps a better term would be hyper-verse meaning a universe of universes. Universes would then communicate in an analogous way to galactic clusters, etc. Again, not outlandish.

Not to mention that there is nothing in physics that explains the process of creation of multiple universe mass objects, or that defines how and when such bifurcations should occur.

There is nothing in physics that YET explains the process, perhaps. More importantly, there is nothing that denies it either, and yet there is a great deal of mathematics that supports it. But yes, it is hypothesis, not thesis.

So, this universe, which by definition contains itself, is bounded. It is a closed system.

The solar system, which by definition contains itself, is bounded. And yet, it is an open system. The solar system boundary is set by convention and by definition in exactly the same way you are attempting to define the boundary of the universe in a conventional manner. Your definition, while useful in certain limited ways, has no theoretical basis in physics or mathematics.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

I was not referring to the time before the universe. I was referring to this universe, that does now exist.

The Big Bang Singularity means that at one stage, everything in this universe touched everything else in the universe and beyond the outer boundary of the universe, there was nothing else affecting it. No matter was separate and it all existed within a boundary. That is the definition of a closed system.

No. All definitions break down at the so-called "Big Bang Singularity". ALL definitions. At that time there is no 'this universe, that does now exist'. There is no time. There is no boundary. There is no system. I know this is difficult to comprehend, but there is NOTHING that has anything to do with our experience of the universe. There is not only no-thing, there is also nothing period.

After the singularity, after the Planck time, the universe obeys knowable physical laws, time exists, the universe is finite and bounded. It IS a closed system. It is not open, nor is it in an indeterminate state.

To suggest that there was no universe, before there was a universe, is a fairly obvious thing and does not make the universe after it comes into existence, 'open'.

It is a convention of speech that when someone refers to an object, that one is referring to that object, not to an absence of that object, as you seem to be inferring.

Similarly, other calved universes in a multiverse are all individual closed systems too. There is no communication between such universes.

You have no evidence to support this assertion. For all you know black-hole/white-hole pairs may serve as conduits for energy/information between universes. The idea is certainly no more outlandish that anything else in quantum physics/mathematics/cosmology.

White holes would be obvious from their radiance. We see no indications at all that white holes exist. They are as obviously absent as is any evidence for other universes.

If there is a multiverse system, perhaps a better term would be hyper-verse meaning a universe of universes. Universes would then communicate in an analogous way to galactic clusters, etc. Again, not outlandish.

Why not holistic super-mega-hyper-omni-multiverses because "everything is connected".



Sadly, such is not science.

Not to mention that there is nothing in physics that explains the process of creation of multiple universe mass objects, or that defines how and when such bifurcations should occur.

There is nothing in physics that YET explains the process, perhaps. More importantly, there is nothing that denies it either, and yet there is a great deal of mathematics that supports it. But yes, it is hypothesis, not thesis.

Vague future possibilities, that are not evidenced, are neither physics, nor science.

So, this universe, which by definition contains itself, is bounded. It is a closed system.

The solar system, which by definition contains itself, is bounded. And yet, it is an open system. The solar system boundary is set by convention and by definition in exactly the same way you are attempting to define the boundary of the universe in a conventional manner. Your definition, while useful in certain limited ways, has no theoretical basis in physics or mathematics.

The Solar System is generally considered to be bounded by the Heliopause. Within the Heliopause, the Solar System is an 'open' system because objects may enter it from interstellar space and it is gravitationally a part of the Milky Way galaxy.

Similarly, on galactic scales there are also interactions, collisions, gravitational tides and the outward pressure proscribed by the cosmological constant, so galaxies are 'open' to each other.

At extra-galactic scales, there are remnants of the Big Bang in the expanded quantum foam superstructure. In time, the expanding light cone of the universe will take these extra-galactic structures beyond the reach of each other, but even then, they are influenced by the cosmological constant and the expanded Big Bang quantum structures, and so are, to a certain extent, still 'open'.

But when we speak of the universe, it cannot be influenced by anything outside of it, because it notionally encompasses everything. If something were beyond its boundaries, its definition would require that we expand it to include that other thing. So, it remains a closed system. Philosophically, ontologically, mathematically and scientifically.

universe - Merriam-Webster online dictionary

a reply to: chr0naut

Why not holistic super-mega-hyper-omni-multiverses because "everything is connected".

Sure, why not? Its turtles all the way down.

Sadly, such is not science.

So... mathematics is not science?

Look, I agree that the universe, even if it isn't 'actually' closed, may as well be considered closed in order to answer questions about it. We do that all the time with systems we know for a fact are not closed.

All I'm saying is that there is no actual evidence that what we define as the universe is in fact closed and there is mathematics that suggest that it is not. That mathematics result may be in error, I don't know for sure. But neither do you.

You can quote the dictionary definition all you want, but the dictionary definition may be insufficient to describe reality, because the dictionary editors don't know either.

But again, in order to answer questions that affect us we may as well consider the universe a closed system. I think I pretty much said that same thing when someone asked, in a different thread, whether there was more than one Big Bang - I answered 'not in this universe, no'. In other words we are living in the universe we are living in, and any hypothetical communication with any hypothetical outside universes has no bearing on anything we do in this universe.

Physicists may care, and we might be interested in the results, but it ain't gonna affect us one way or the other. Physicists make models for a living - its just what they do. Remember always that the map is not the territory. A model is a proposed explanation for how something works, not the be-all and end-all. An hypothesis is a model that attempts to describe some observation about nature. If it works it works and if it doesn't they keep trying. Relativity is a model, evolution is a model, gravitation is a model, germ theory is a model. These have all been tested and demonstrated to give answers consistent with observations of reality over and over and over and over. But no model is ever perfect, new observations have to be accounted for. Relativity doesn't have answers for a large class of observations, so we have another model that addresses those classes (Quantum theory(. At some point we would like to have one model, a Theory of Everything, that ties them together but we ain't there yet. Einstein spent the last years of his life working on just that problem - and a heck of a lot of people are working on it.

In the case of the Big Bang and what 'preceded' it, discussion is 100% mathematics and philosophy. Talking about 'before' the Big Bang is nonsense you know? Before the Big Bang there is no time so 'before' and 'precede' have no meaning. You get tied in philosophical knots before you even get started (pun intended).

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, why not? Its turtles all the way down.

Sadly, such is not science.

So... mathematics is not science?

Mathematics is a symbolic language used to describe interactions in a strongly reductionist manner, also allowing us to manipulate those concepts symbolically.

Mathematics is often used in science but it can also be used in invalid ways.

This is why the conclusions of mathematics need to integrate with observational data to provide any scientific confidence.

Mathematics is a science and, like all true science, supports conclusions that may be falsified, allowing scientific method to test hypotheses and theories.

Look, I agree that the universe, even if it isn't 'actually' closed, may as well be considered closed in order to answer questions about it. We do that all the time with systems we know for a fact are not closed.

All I'm saying is that there is no actual evidence that what we define as the universe is in fact closed and there is mathematics that suggest that it is not. That mathematics result may be in error, I don't know for sure. But neither do you.

You can quote the dictionary definition all you want, but the dictionary definition may be insufficient to describe reality, because the dictionary editors don't know either.

The universe is 'bounded' everywhere where we can measure or infer, from the Planck values, to the extragalactic deep-field structure.

It started at a discrete time and will die a heat death of maximum entropy at a discrete time.

It's age and mass is known. It's expansion rate is known. Its total energy is known. It's fields, forces, variables and constants are fairly much all known.

It contains everything that exists. There is, therefore, nothing that exists outside of it.

In every sense, it is both finite and thermodynamically closed.

But again, in order to answer questions that affect us we may as well consider the universe a closed system. I think I pretty much said that same thing when someone asked, in a different thread, whether there was more than one Big Bang - I answered 'not in this universe, no'. In other words we are living in the universe we are living in, and any hypothetical communication with any hypothetical outside universes has no bearing on anything we do in this universe.

Physicists may care, and we might be interested in the results, but it ain't gonna affect us one way or the other. Physicists make models for a living - its just what they do. Remember always that the map is not the territory. A model is a proposed explanation for how something works, not the be-all and end-all. An hypothesis is a model that attempts to describe some observation about nature. If it works it works and if it doesn't they keep trying. Relativity is a model, evolution is a model, gravitation is a model, germ theory is a model. These have all been tested and demonstrated to give answers consistent with observations of reality over and over and over and over. But no model is ever perfect, new observations have to be accounted for. Relativity doesn't have answers for a large class of observations, so we have another model that addresses those classes (Quantum theory(. At some point we would like to have one model, a Theory of Everything, that ties them together but we ain't there yet. Einstein spent the last years of his life working on just that problem - and a heck of a lot of people are working on it.

I heard that he'd kicked his TOE in the GUT before he died.

In the case of the Big Bang and what 'preceded' it, discussion is 100% mathematics and philosophy. Talking about 'before' the Big Bang is nonsense you know? Before the Big Bang there is no time so 'before' and 'precede' have no meaning. You get tied in philosophical knots before you even get started (pun intended).

If there is no time, then dimensionality that separates events, does not exist and therefore nothing can change.

A change therefore implies and defines a 'temporal' distance, or, even in a binary sense, something to measure a 'before', from an 'after'. Therefore to achieve the singularity from nothing, must imply the pre-existence of time.

Similarly, quantum fluctuation, from which the singularity purportedly arose, implies both spatiality and temporal simultaneity, before the singularity.

There is no confusion or fuzzy definitions involved. It is clear, unequivocal and simple to comprehend.

There are no "philosophical knots" (even in string theories ) at all.

Let's see if those who were at the basis of today's scientist were in fact real scientist or at least in their field of study at the time they formed their Highly Opinionated garbage we are today to except as REAL science. If the foundation is off then the whole of the rest is off as well.

Here is a list of biggest Hoaxers of the most scientific speculations ever to be entered into so called science books. If these men were alive today they would be charged with fraud and impersonation. Yet men today revere the works of these con-artists as gospel truth.

1) Hugh Miler - stone mason, not a scientist or a certified geologist

2) John Flemming - Zoologist, not a certified Biologist or geologist

3) William Smith - Surveyor, not a scientist or a certified geologist

4) Charles Darwin - a Divinity Student not a scientist of any branch

5) Charles Lyell - A Lawyer, not a scientist of any branch

6) John Playfair - Mathematician, not a scientist of any branch

5) James Hutton - Agriculturalist, not a scientist or a certified botanist.

6) Rodrick Murcherson - gentleman, not a scientist in any way shape of form or study thereof.

7) Robert Chambers - Journalist, not a scientist in any field of study.

Yet These fraudsters are the basis of so called evolutionary theory.

Don't be fooled for one moment that the present observable world is in any way a process by which we have a key to understand the past. It is not.

One thing you and I have and can observed today in the world around us is this one truth. No processes in nature are creative.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I find your list to be highly confused. Many of them lived in the Nineteenth Century and some in the Eighteenth Century. The word 'scientist' was still being defined at the time. There were no trained scientists as we would describe them, just highly original thinkers whose work was later built on.
I also find your description of those men as hoaxers to be laughable.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You are mistaken there were real scientist of their day science goes back thousands of years by those who were notarized and schooled as such. What you are confused on is the myriad of branches of it that we have today weren't known back then. But that doesn't make them experts in the field they claimed to study, when clearly they were not. Most of the work of today's supposed evolutionary scientific research was done off the backs of these fakes. If you start with a false premise you will have bad science built on top of that and that includes any scientific branch based on it. Still no proof of a big bang, what do thing the 7 working Hadron Colliders around the world are trying to prove? No proof of transitional animals or beings. Also in the last century made a full skull was made out of two small 3mm pieces they claimed were from a skull of a ape/man hybrid which was proven a fake yet it still in science books. All animals of humanoid, bovine, equine, canine and feline families we have today, could have been produced from a single pair of each biological type.

Yes, it is about as laughable as the false Hockey Stick graph, that purported prove global warming when none was taking place. It was then that "Global Warming" brand was dropped (out of embarrassment of falsified information by "So Called Scientist") and re-branded as "Climate Change". Still the same science and still the same fraudulent data.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

most of the work of today's supposed evolutionary scientific research was done off the backs of these fakes.

If you start with a false premise you will have bad science built on top of that and that includes evolutionary science.

I'm going to quote your post in its entirety. Then I'm going to facepalm a lot. No. You really don't get it. Yes, some of them got things wrong. They did not have access to the tools that we take for granted. They weren't certified scientists or biologists or geologists because such certification did not then exist, or was barely in the process of being tentatively formed. They laid down certain hypotheses and general principles that have in some cases (like Darwin) stood the test of time and in some cases have been later amended. Calling them 'fakes' is startlingly ignorant and points to an inherent bias on your part.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

NO you don't get it.

Fake fake fake but you wont admit it because then you would have to look for a more accurate data and you have none. You would have to admit you a willing lemming of the left leaning agenda that has be replacing the truth of Science and history over the last 100 years with lies ad fraudulent materials produced by their own peers with the same views as the rest who wanted not one of them to look like frauds which most scientist are, just like Nye the science guy.

here is another fake hailing from the same era as the list above.

Milutin Milanković - Mathematician and a Civil Engineer, but not a certified physicist, or a certified, geophysicist or a scientist of any kind. Wikipedia as slanderous implied he is a climatologist when there no such scientific branch by that name even existed then. He is a self-purported astronomer and by that I could also claim to be one seeing I made a small reflector telescope and I gaze upon the heavens.

Yet you will find his theories touted as truth when the man was a scientific fraud.