Science Disproves Evolution

Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ??something nature cannot do.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 16.   Compatible Senders and Receivers

Evolutionism does not apply to everything such as humans but there are many instances when it is true though

So given that my CNS has cannabinoid receptors that means that the creator intended for me to be high all the time. :D

Haven't you ever heard of self-organizing systems? Complex organizations of what you've called "senders and receivers" that crystallize into shape without foresight or planning.

Quote:

---

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I).

---

Only intelligence recognizes codes, programs and information as codes, programs and information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahu78

Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences.

---

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

We are all just physical manifestations of electricity signals.

---

We are the physical result of interacting psychokinetic signals.
At least thats how i see it. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

Haven't you ever heard of self-organizing systems? Complex organizations of what you've called "senders and receivers" that crystallize into shape without foresight or planning.

---

The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptileâ??s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)â??but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survivalâ??and reptile-to-mammal evolutionâ??would cease.

Concluding that a miracleâ??or any extremely unlikely eventâ??happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar â??miracleâ?� happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. â??... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).â?� Thomas H. Rich et al., â??Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,â?� Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

â??Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ??in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.â?� Sid Perkins, â??Groovy Bones,â?� Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex â??wiringâ?� in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 

Another religion versus evolution argument that neither side can ever prove beyond all doubt.

Infinity indeed can be crossed. There are shortcuts through infinity, everywhere. Time is only a mind barrier, an illusion. At least in my opinion. What is all this talk of impossibilities? Any/every thing is possible, it just takes the right perspective.

"Anything is possible
Believe in a wish and it'll come true

Everything is delightful
There's nothing frightful
In a piece of the world where we make our own rules"

Here we go again.... This post is so ill-informed I could cry.

Why do Creationists sorry, ID supporters keep copying and pasting rubbish that they don't even understand themselves?

This is a science forum, for - well y'know - Science.

Read all about the Transition you claim never happened...

"Although Archaeopteryx is by far the best-known of the transitional fossils, it is not the only one, or even the best. The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. It is not, therefore, surprising that the creationists do not talk much about the reptile-mammal series, and when they do, most of what they say is demonstrably untrue."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Another religion versus evolution argument that neither side can ever prove beyond all doubt.

---

I don't know about that! to be honest, pretty much everything this guy posted was Horseshit and readily disproven tbh.

The thing is, like most of the ID crowd he doesn't even understand what he's copy-pasting. That's what makes these arguments so bloody annoying.

Once you start to get somewhere they go and get themselves banned or just vanish once you prove everything they said/posted is toss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I don't know about that! to be honest, pretty much everything this guy posted was Horseshit and readily disproven tbh.

The thing is, like most of the ID crowd he doesn't even understand what he's copy-pasting. That's what makes these arguments so bloody annoying.

Once you start to get somewhere they go and get themselves banned or just vanish once you prove everything they said/posted is toss.

---

Can you prove either beyond any doubt ?
I would be interested to see anyone try.
The man who thinks he has found the truth will seek no further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Can you prove either beyond any doubt ?
I would be interested to see anyone try.
The man who thinks he has found the truth will seek no further.

---

I can prove everything this guy posted is pseudo-science and not true - so, erm - YES!

in fact it looks like posted the same crap here:
Science Disproves Evolution - sci.physics | Google Groups

and was rightly WTFPWNED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I can prove everything this guy posted is pseudo-science and not true - so, erm - YES!

in fact it looks like posted the same crap here:
Science Disproves Evolution - sci.physics | Google Groups

and was rightly WTFPWNED

---

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

---

Which is EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

I'm not trying to disprove his theory - he doesn't have one, he's just attacking evolution and doing a poor job to boot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Which is EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

I'm not trying to disprove his theory - he doesn't have one, he's just attacking evolution and doing a poor job to boot.

---

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

---

I'm having a similar discussion in politics.

I personally don't believe in creationism but I don't deny the possibility. People are either going to be open minded and say "it may be possible" or staunchly say no that it's wrong.

meh, really when it comes down to it no one with all certainty can prove 100% that either side is right.

It just so happens though that science is winning the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

---

No I'm not missing the point, carefully read my posts - at no point did I say disproving ID proved evolution. I said everything he copy-pasted was inaccurate or lies and easily proved false. He is making claims with no basis in fact.

There are mountains of evidence but unfortunately you usually need to study Biology or even have a degree in Genetics to fully comprehend all of it - the ID crowd utilise this situation rather well by spewing pseudo science that the average person can't distinguish from real science.

This isn't just semantics either, creationists lie, deceive and distort - and they do it a lot.

Evolution is a scientific theory - it is falsifiable, makes predictions, and yes I can happily prove it to be true - beyond doubt. Where would you like me to start? Microevolution or Macroevolution? Transitional fossils or Endogenous retroviruses?

Non scientists arguing about science is a recipe for disaster :thumbsup:

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

---

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole.

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Its the ID / Creationists who have stopped asking questions - go figure.

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

I realise that last post came off a bit strong, I don't mean to be so confrontational but I do grow tired of these arguments and "discussions" around evolution which is deeply misunderstood at times.

If I had a joint I would pass it - be sure :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

---

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.

Quote:

---

It [the universe] could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present.

---

Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.



Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.

---

You and i define infinite VASTLY DIFFERENTLY if you believe that ANYTHING AT ALL can NOT be infinite.


there is only one non-infinite "thing" in my opinion and understanding of infinity, and that is nothing. but even nothingness can be infinite, for it cannot be quantifiable as there are no "things" to occupy the empty nothingness.



how i conceive all things to be infinite:

endless micro/macroscopic "spiral" of "time". the smallest known "building block" of the universe is nothing more than the smallest KNOWN building block. i do not believe there is an ultimately smallest component, that the components are all (always) made up of even smaller components. Likewise, all components are constantly and actively being used to build increasingly larger components, indefinitely.

so how does time play into this? why a spiral?

let's start off simple. what IS time? it is our conception of movement through space, our way of gauging it. it's basis is relative; without another object in motion to compare, there would be no concept of time.

so "time" is merely the rate of movement of objects in space.

why a spiral? because spirals start from the center, as tiny singularities, and warp their way outward until they are eventually behemoth circular pictures. at the center of the spiral is the smallest components, and at the perimeter of the spiral are the largest components.

however, because time is infinite, there are no "smallest" or "largest" components, just gradually smaller and larger ones.


Now, the next bit is more complex. for every action there exists an equal but opposite reaction, however there are also cases of multiple equal-but-opposite possible reactions.
If every possible reaction DOES exist, "spiral" time is multifaceted... in other words, spirals spiraling off of spirals.

If time and space are infinite, then there is no reason not to think that all possible realities co-exist in the same time-space as their counter parts, but on different vibrational frequencies so that even though they overlap and occupy the same space, they will never collide. because the infinite implies no bounds, every infinite possible (alternate) reality is on such an infinitely unique frequency they are incapable of colliding.



if the pattern were two realities, it would be an even reality and an odd reality, both existing in the frame where the other is absent.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


while reality one looks like 13579 and reality 2 looks like 2468, they exist in the same time and space, but on opposite frequencies. like a computer monitor acts in "flashes" of frames, for example 60 frames per second, this theory operates on "frames". we only see and experience the "frames" of our reality's frequencies. when our reality's frequencies are "off" another reality's frequencies are "on".

Infinite, paradoxical, crazy even, but it makes more sense to me than anything else... how can anything NOT be infinite?





and for the sake of bringing this tangent on-topic:

Not all things can stimulate evolution in all other things, but anything that holds influence on anything is ultimately changing the other thing's destiny or fate, is ultimately changing the other thing's experiences, is ultimately changing, ever so subtly, the other thing.


While throwing rocks into the water i'snt going to change the water or the rocks much in the long term, our diets+lifestyles have been changing our physiology since the dawn of time.


i find it impossible to conceive of a fat lethargic neanderthal sitting on his ass all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

^'Nothing' is a human concept.

There is no such thing as 'nothing' if you ask me.

---

"nothing" and infinity occupy the exact same space. hell, they are arguably the same "thing".


i mean... look at it this way: what is absolutely all 100% of all of infinity?

essentially, i would say, that it is nothing at all.




or look at it this way: the void of space is nothing(ness) and all energy and matter are infinity itself, or at least infinite unto themselves as per my weirdo explanation of infinity.

that's all it really is, all anything really is; what it IS and the human conception thereof.

That said, yeah, there is such a thing as time, but our perceptions and measurements of it are completely artificial.


likewise, i cannot NOT believe in infinity, but i also cannot believe that i KNOW it either. i simply conceive of it in my own human understanding of the idea(s) thereof.

I like my concept of infinity, and it likes me back :jointsmile:



plus it makes getting stoned a much wilder trip to think of everything as infinite; consider the flame and the heat and the bud and the ash, and all of the interactions they exchange between the flick of the bic to the coughing.

THEN to consider all the sub-interactions going on between subatomic particles in the process!


and then, of course, there's the matter of brain cells and neurological activity...




getting high makes infinity much more interesting :D

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.

---

i dont know about that, what is to say that the object has borders? what's not to say that we are actually limited in our perceptions of objects "with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape", and they are not actually separated from the higher dimensional planes? perhaps we are the only ones who have borders separating our perceptions from the higher planes?


cant say you're wrong, cant say you're right, but i can say that it's deffenitely one valid and awesome interpretation of infinity :jointsmile:

obviously, a 'sativa' sort of thread ... :S2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

What higher planes exactly? And what makes you think we have these higher planes?

---

it's just a label for something we dont yet understand. an idea that there are other dimensions greater and lesser than our own.


a "higher plane" would just mean to say a larger dimension than where our perceptions rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole..

---

Insulting in what way ?
That comment shows a touch of arrogance.
I understand a lot more than you realise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

---

Do you have all the answers ?
I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

---

I disagree , science only has some of the answers , only by further investigation can we ever hope to find those missing answers.

Unanswered Questions about the Evolution of the Early Universe

EGO FIGHT!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

EGO FIGHT!!!

---

LOL :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

LOL :cool:

---

Psychocat Wins! or something, i dunno... you have a pretty powerful ego though, but my egopenis is bigger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

Psychocat Wins! or something, i dunno... you have a pretty powerful ego though, but my egopenis is bigger!

---

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.
I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D

At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:

BTW
I like your humour Wolfie. :jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.
I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D

At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:

BTW
I like your humour Wolfie. :jointsmile:

---

My humor likes you back... should i set up a date or something? :giggity:

haha ok nevermind, my humor doesnt want to get into a relationship just yet. :D

ok im done... lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.

---

Bullshit - I never said that - I said I understand it. I didn't say anything about you being incapable of understanding it - I just said you obviously haven't studied it - there is a BIG difference. Careful with what you write - I get it to read it afterwards and everything...;)

I'm sure you are capable of understanding it - a 10 year old can understand it. You just don't seem able to apply any understanding of it to this 'discussion'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D

---

Well you have a funny idea of open discussion - playing Devils Advocate here is just stupid. Remember the OP - remember what we are even discussing? Go ahead and Play Devils Advocate - but what is your point exactly?

Is your point: Science doesn't have all the answers to everything? Well YES I couldn't agree more.

But we aren't talking about Everything are we - NO, we are talking about Biological Evolution, well I am at least. As far as that is concerned Biology really does have all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:

---

Well I'm out of here, I couldn't give a toss if you want to argue about something that has fuck all to do with the original post. Play devils advocate all you like on your own. You can keep your opinion(s) they are a poor substitute to logic.

I'm talking about Biological evolution - what the hell has that to do with how the universe was created. That's the bit where we both departed from the same course. I was pretty sure you were moving in that direction early on, I just didn't come out and say it - hence my Apples and Oranges comment.

For example with this link:
Unanswered Questions about the Evolution of the Early Universe

WTF has the above link got to do with the theory of Evolution? We aren't even on the same page Mate. I'm done with this pointless argument it sucks when I KNOW you are an intellectual and you just want to pick a fight over something.

Meh, 10 minute edit limit beat me...

Psychocat - I really don't want to keep this up - it detracts from the OP, which was the person I was actually disagreeing with. You are clearly an intellectual and I totally know where you are coming from on this. I agree with your standpoint on knowledge and information, especially when it comes to scientific theory. Please don't mistake my confidence for arrogance on this topic.

The key difference here is that the OP lied and tried to use pseudo-science to 'disprove' a very solid theory. Making stuff up to disprove a theory (by counting on the majority of people not being able to tell the difference) is deceptive at best, dangerous at worst and definately not science.

It's like a red rag to a bull. When I see bullshit I will call it.

Double Whammy! Delta9 takes the lead! wait i thought this was a fight, not an ego race :S oh well... TOUCHDOWN!