Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About disruptor

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Old Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Orkney, UK
  1. disruptor


    If I may be permitted a few disparate comments on a few of the many issues raised in these replies. Nominal wrote: No heh-heh I don't know what that can mean. And I do not have a website. I merely gave a reference (not a "promo" as you call it), as I should. Nor do I "shop" anything around. I put this info on ONE other Christian website, a) because I don't like being lied to (by the h*mosexual lobby and the medical authorities); and because it's a matter of life and death (people being given toxic AIDS-causing "treatments" such as AZT, as Deadlock observed). Chance asked: Not even the best alternative AIDS sites are willing to spell out the whole horrible truth. But here it is (as I personally see it): AIDS is an immune deficiency. It is caused by immune burn-out. Amongst H*m*sexuals, this immune exhaustion is triggered by erroneous seminal fluid intake. Sperm in the vagina does not trigger an immune response. Nor does swallowed sperm (since the sperms are rapidly killed by the digestive juices). Immune responses are only triggered by sperm in the bloodstream. Since the fragile skin of the rectum is damaged by anal s@x allowing seminal fluid to "bleed through" into the bloodstream, rectal sperm intake does trigger immune responses. The immune system can't tell the difference between sperm cells and other micro-organisms in the bloodstream. This even explains why Kaposi's Sarcoma of the lower back region is the first sign of full-blown AIDS amongst H*m*sexuals (but not usually amongst IV drug users whose immune burn-out is mainly caused by contaminants in their IV drugs triggering immune responses - though there are plenty of prostitutes and H*m*sexuals as well in the IV drug-using community). The immune system is finite. If it comes into operation periodically to combat stray infections, it lasts a lifetime (assuming it is given the opportunity to recover). However, it is not designed for the type of continuous abuse that H*m*sexuals and IV drug users demand of it. After a while the immune system simply gives up - and this results in full-blown AIDS. To blame the HIV virus has less scientific value than blaming an "evil spirit", IMHO. In the African case, many cases of AIDS are the result of immune burn-out caused by malnutrition, disease and IV drug use as well as erroneous seminal fluid intake and rape. Some people argue that the African AIDS figures are much exaggerated in any case for reasons of personal gain: "My medical studies led me to believe that AIDS was devastating [Africa] and the people who showed me the situation here reinforced this belief. I jumped into this, and made others believe it. And now I know it was not true. But I know many more things that were not true. Nothing was true.... We have been shown false orphans since the beginning—children who have parents who never died, but who will not show up any more…Families just bring them as orphans, and if you ask how the parents died they will say AIDS. It is fashionable nowadays to say that, because it brings money and support.... If you say your father has died in a car accident it is bad luck, but if he has died from AIDS there is an agency to help you. The local people have seen so many agencies coming…that they want to join this group of victims. Everybody claims to be a victim of AIDS nowadays. And local people working for AIDS agencies have become rich. They have built homes in Dar es Salaam, they have their motorbikes; they have benefited a lot." - Philippe Krynen, former director, Partage Tanzania, French Aids charity. Job 13:4 But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.
  2. disruptor


    HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease. Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry. When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV. At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The h*mosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior. Rom. 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Some Quotes on the Non-Existence of HIV "Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry 1993 and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, needed a reference for "the generally known fact" that HIV was the cause of AIDS. While working on a project he became aware that he didn´t know a scientific reference for the statement he had just written down: HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. So he asked the next virologist at the table after that basic paper. The virologist told Mullis, he wouldn´t need a reference in this case; after all, everyone knows that HIV leads to AIDS. Kary Mullis disagreed and thought such an important discovery should be published in some paper. He learnt soon that it was impossible to find such a paper." Claus Kohnlein. "Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.......It is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained. They concluded: "the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined". Stefan Lanka http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html
  3. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    Watching an evolutionist lose an argument is never a pretty sight. I am sure there is a church somewhere which will help you pick up the pieces. 1 Cor 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.
  4. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    MRC_Hans wrote: Er...yes, I can, and I just did. If you wish to come up with a more effective "falsification" of evolution theory than mine, feel free to do so. If you don't, can't or won't specify the experimental or observational conditions under which evolution theory can be falsified, then evolution theory is not proper science. None of the things you mention are falsifiable conditions. If a palaeontologist did happen to find a Cambrian dinosaur or a Cretaceous primate fossil, it would be immediately rejected by the scientific community. This has happened every time that human and dinosaur footprints have been discovered in the same strata. Evolutionists would immediately reject such evidence, rather than reject evolution theory on this basis. So evolution theory is not falsifiable on this basis, and therefore remains unscientific. This is not a falsification condition. Clearly there is such a mechanism for transferring "genotypical traits between generations" - our likeness to our parents shows this. But is this same mechanism responsible for producing distinct "new" species from other supposedly ancestral species? No. So this can never be a falsification condition for evolution theory in general. By contrast, the inability of geneticists to create entirely new, distinct and stable species (even a new fruit fly) from other species is a falsification condition for evolution theory. Given the existence of your "genotypic transfer mechanism", and the ability to breed many generations of fruit flies, (and since God, in your view, has no say in the matter) it should be a simple matter for clever scientists with a decent laboratory to breed a new species. Since they cannot do so, evolution theory is further falsified. How is this a falsification condition? You are merely saying that if species showed no "signs of relationship" to each other, evolution theory would be false. But all life obviously shows such "signs of relationship" (in being "alive" for example) and no true creationist would ever deny such "signs of relationship" (they are there for all to see). Your argument is like saying: if subatomic particles showed "no signs of relationship" to each other (which they obviously do since they are all subatomic particles), then physics would be "false". You need to specify a particular, experimentally or observationally testable falsification condition, not just a vague notion of "relationship" which could equally well be interpreted from a creationist perspective. You are naturally welcome to keep evolution theory if you insist... ...a rather suspiciously convenient definition for an evolutionist ... but unfortunately for your line of reasoning, merely stating that any life form has the "potential" to be an ancestor is not a falsifiable (or scientific) concept. Nor is it a falsifiable concept to say that any form "has been" the ancestor of a different form, since you need to specify which forms so that we may judge whether your assertion is false or not (and therefore whether evolution theory is further falsified thereby or not). You should specify experimentally or observationally falsifiable definitions. Jam 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries?
  5. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    Vision in Verse wrote: It's very simple. Vision in Verse, MRC_Hans and any believers in falsificationism: please specify the experimental or observational conditions under which you would abandon evolution theory as false. That's what would make it "science" according to Popperian falsificationism: specifying a crucial experimental result or observation which would falsify evolution theory. I submit that the only worthwhile testable prediction made by evolution theory is the existence of countless intermediate forms. Since these do not exist, evolution theory is false. If you believe evolution theory is not falsified by the absence of intermediate forms, then evolution theory is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. Q.E.D. Rom 1:20-23 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
  6. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    92g is completely right in saying: Fred Williams wrote: Possibly even "low-grade hypothesis" is being a shade too polite about it. Evolution is anunscientific low-grade hypothesis. MRC_Hans argues that evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable. When a theory is "falsifiable" (according to the original formulation of Karl Popper), then the theory must state the observations, predictions or results which would falsify that theory. This is necessary because no amount of evidence can ever "prove" any scientific theory beyond doubt (according to Popper). Evolution theory is therefore supposed to make testable predictions which, if false, would falsify (=disprove) evolutionary theory. But evolution theory has made numerous predictions (for example the existence of countless intermediate forms), these predictions have not been backed up by any evidence (since those "intermediate" forms do not actually exist in the fossil record) — but evolutionary theory has not been "falsified" by this failure to be in accord with its own predictions. According to evolution theory there should be millions of intermediate forms in the fossil record (even in "punctuated equilibrium" type re-writings of Darwinism), but there are none. And this massive discrepancy has not caused evolution theory to be abandoned as obviously false. Therefore evolution theory can neither be proved, nor falsified. Evolution theory is clearly unscientific by scientific criteria. Evolution theory was always primarily a weapon against God and Christianity (witness its application and use for justifying mass-murder of Christians and others under Communism). Evolution theory is not, and never was, science. Isa 59:13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
  7. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    Vision in Verse wrote: Not a chance... ain't free speech wonderful! It's interesting how Christians are meant to feel responsible for the crimes of the Inquisition, while scientists are never supposed to feel responsible for the crimes of "scientific" societies. The Soviet Union was proud to be based on scientific principles, claimed this repeatedly, structured its education system accordingly, and tried to eliminate religion. It saw itself as the first society ever set up according to scientific principles. No wonder science wishes to deny it now. The Lysenko case may have revealed a lot about Soviet science that subsequently helped discredit it. None of this was atypical of science in general, however. Governments everywhere promote certain types of scientific research which are to their own benefit, while denying funding to other types which they dismiss as unscientific. I take issue with the notion that science is an objective process taking place in a sort of moral vacuum. If there is no morality at work in the minds of the scientists in question, no spirituality, no God as part of the creative process, the end result is inevitably corrupt and subject to mutation into evil. At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates: "I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .' "I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. "'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed. "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said. "'What book is that?' I enquired. "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me". From: E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940, pp. 8-12. "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history". Friedrich Engels. "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." . Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859 (only months after The Origin of Species was published). "During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." Letter, K. Marx to F. Engels, December 19, 1860. "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Letter, K. Marx to F. Lassalle, January 16 1861.
  8. disruptor

    Is Evolution A Religion?

    f I may be permitted a few random observations on a couple of the issues raised in this thread: Evolving chirality from racemic mixtures of amino-acids is not the major problem - evolving metabolisms and functioning nuclei is. In any case, the church throughout its history has accepted Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation, so there is nothing particularly un-Christian about abiogenesis per se. So MRC_Hans thinks that this is an "absurd scenario". However, Soviet Communism and its relatives elsewhere were societies based on "scientific" principles, and killed millions who disagreed with them, especially Christians and other religious believers. MRC_Hans wrote: Evolution is an excellent example of an entirely unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific theory. Processes supposed to take place over billions of years are not falsifiable since no experiment can reproduce the time condition required (amongst other things). There is also a linear time error which science cannot get away from (I tried to argue this line elsewhere on the forum). The number of existing observations in nature which do not, and never will, fit evolutionary theory is huge. I would remind you that a mere 3 anomalous observations concerning Newtonian physics were enough to demolish it (because physics is proper science). The number of anomalous observations in evolutionary theory is countless, and will never cause the theory to be demolished (because evolutionary theory is not proper science). 1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
  9. disruptor


    Chance wrote: Forgive the delay in replying, but in answer to your question: yes. Naturally I would never base any view of mine on mere NASA photos. I try to base my views on scripture. I merely observe the self-made predicament that NASA has got itself into by trying to deny its own evidence, faking later images, etc. I note the behaviour of NASA scientists who are willing to deny whatever evidence – even that of their own experiments – when that evidence conflicts with their deeply-held scientific beliefs. In fact, hardly any scientist ever changes his or her mind about any basic scientific belief whatsoever, any more than a religious believer does, no matter how convincing the evidence. Scientists merely assemble “new†factoids within the accepted paradigm. Anything that threatens the paradigm is rejected. The Mars issue clearly shows this process at work. At present, all the sciences have reached an impasse, with ever greater numbers of scientists competing for research grants to engage in pointless, trivial, repetitive, commercial and often just bad science. Most proper science was done and finished long ago. It’s about time for a major paradigm shift in science. And there’s only one way that this shift is going to take place: by allowing God His rightful place in the scientific scheme of things. Scientists from Newton to Einstein allowed God his place; only the extremist 20th c. Marxist-Darwinist interpretations of science have denied it completely. And these godless interpretations of science have resulted in more state-sponsored mass-murder than every inquisition and jihad put together. Science has not even begun to atone for its many crimes. Perhaps putting the divine back into creation would be a good place to start. Jeremiah 33:3: Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. Rev 22:1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
  10. disruptor

    Evolution And Fascism

    I'm happy to say I have been banned from several Forums. I was particularly pleased to be banned from the Forum of the anti-Christian website evilbible.com for a thread that they really didn't like (my first post there). The whole website is about criticizing the Bible for being supposedly "evil" - I merely pointed out that if the Bible ignored "evil" and merely spoke about peace, love and flowers it wouldn't be "relevant", and that many of us like our Bibles just as they are, war and all (that's what really upset their liberal sensitivities). They banned me, but left the thread there to cause further disruption. I was also instantly banned from this Christian Forum for daring to suggest (in my first post) an obvious alteration to one word of the translation of Leviticus 20:10. Well, some moderators are a bit on the sensitive side...
  11. disruptor


    . I guess that means us Christians....as it happens I do accord Earth and mankind a special place in the universe - I even accord the right of humans to be at the center of their universe, just as any other creature has the right to be at the center of its own universe. This is even literally true in terms of cosmology, since the red shift of the galaxies means we are at the center of the universe - each of us, individually. It's also true in quantum theory since only the observer causes the collapse of the wave function and determines what takes place. And finding life elsewhere is a much bigger problem for science than it is for Christianity, since the angels of the Bible are both physical and not of this Earth, just as the Bible says. Please don't confuse the teachings of the Bible with the watered-down versions of these truths presented in our enfeebled emasculated Churches, incidentally. Abiogenesis (which is still basically the same thing as Aristotle's "spontaneous generation" theory) could be a possibility for planets which have "primordial soup" type oceans with amino acids at the right temperature and pressure, etc. By a mechanism such as that proposed by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, with spores or viruses carried into the upper atmospheres of planets and then blown elsewhere by solar winds, it might be possible for such "viruses" to spread to other planets, and seed them. Panspermia is the theory claiming the whole Universe is suffused with such spores and viruses, settling on planets when conditions are ripe. This is not a serious "anti-Creationism" argument, however, regardless of what some might think. For one thing, this is still all hypothetical, since the presence of life in primordial soup type oceans on other planets has not been demonstrated scientifically. For another, we'll leave aside the abiogenesis versus creation issue - a lot had to happen before we got to the primordial ocean state of affairs. Also, a virus is not yet a proper life-form (merely amino-acid packages surrounded by proteins), and can be considered a specialized type of chemical molecule - oceans producing such are not really generating "life". Evolving a cell membrane and the cell's own metabolism is what is needed for life - that can't be achieved in a test-tube any more than it could be in an ocean with random bits of amino acids floating about. Further, the Mars surface images (argue all you want about the resolution - it's good enough, IMHO) show that here we are dealing with much more than "convergent evolution". Anyone arguing from an evolutionist viewpoint would need a genetic mechanism to explain the guided evolution from "amino acid" all the way to "pyramid builder" on two separate planets with differing ecosystems, geological histories, weather and climatic conditions etc. That is completely contrary to evolutionary theory in any form (since differing conditions should lead to differing biological design solutions selected through survival of the fittest-type mechanisms). Alternatively, the rigorous scientist would have to deduce "alien contact" (which opens a whole separate can of worms). So it's easiest for scientists just to deny the evidence (as the Church did Galileo's evidence). Yet again this proves that science is not open to the notion of extraterrestial life, except if that life looks like what scientists think it should look like (i.e. should fit on a microscope slide and be unable to build pyramids). That is what makes the Mars images difficult for mainstream science (though of course the UFO/alien fringe are having a whale of a time with all this). IMHO the simpler, neater explanation must be the correct one: the builders of both Martian and Earthly pyramids are the same, therefore there is no real "evolutionary" problem, just as the Bible teaches (q.v the quotes I gave). So it's no problem for us, but a big problem for evolution. And yes, the "angels" of the Bible are also physical, as I said (the word "angel" just means "messenger"). The handiwork of God and His messengers is clearly visible wherever one looks. "Modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." George Wald (Nobel Prize, Physiology and Medicine 1967). 1 Cor 6:3: Know ye not that we shall judge angels?
  12. disruptor

    A Linguistic Argument For A Young Earth

    As it happens, this is the only circumstance in which “circular†arguments do in fact apply. When one deals with the beginning and end of the universe, connecting the two inevitably results in “circularity†and therefore completeness. There's nothing wrong with this. The Bible agrees: Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
  13. disruptor

    A Linguistic Argument For A Young Earth

    It is interesting how some people insist on taking the Bible literally, yet this crucial and famous verse, John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the WORD”) is never taken literally. Instead, most Christian scholars and pastors think it's some kind of “mystical” word that John is talking about – the LOGOS; often people use the Greek word, as if it meant something other than the plain ol' English “word”. In the beginning of the Bible, of the Universe and of the human experience was the Word. And that word was GOD. John 1:1 means what it says – literally. Thanks for your comment, Chance: Wittgenstein should have said “the limits of human language are are the limits of the human world.” We have a collective human experience which involves transmission of knowledge, experience, wisdom and biblical truths (all in words) – so the world did exist before 1966 (but not for me). I am not the only human on this planet. The question is: did the World exist before the creation of humans? And did it exist before language in which notions like “existence” could be discussed? I would still say: no. And John 1:1 confirms this view.
  14. disruptor

    Preferred Bible Translation

    Apart from my trusty KJV, I use this: http://www.blueletterbible.org/ This allows full searches and instant comparsions between KJV and other versions – NKJV, NLT, NASB, Webster's, Young's Literal Translation, Darby, ASV, HNV (=Hebrew Names Version), RSV, and Greek and Hebrew versions. There's also a range of commentaries and 6 Bible dictionaries included. It's the best net-Bible yet.
  15. disruptor

    The Three Heavens.

    Forgive me for intruding upon this thread, but this is the way I understand the “3 Heavens” issue. I thought it was the standard interpretation, so please correct me if I am wrong: The First Heaven is the vault of the sky (Gen 1:8, 1:20, Isa 55:10). The Second Heaven is “space”, i.e. the sun, moon and stars (Gen 15:5, 22:17, Deut 4:19, Nah 3:16). These 2 together are the “heavens” (plural) of Gen 2:1. The 3rd Heaven is the Divine Realm (Deut 10:14 and 26:15, 1 Ki 8:27 (“heaven of heavens” in these 3 cases), 1 Ki 8:30). Incidentally, Apocryphal texts such as the Apocalypse of Paul even speak of 10 Heavens, with God in the 7th: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/ascp.html

Important Information

Our Terms