Debunking Stand Up Facts

debunks their so called science. what's the point in having a science and stating facts if they can't stand up to scrutiny to the point that you have to ignore anything that doesn't support your ideas?

because they hate the truth.

A decade after the World Trade Center disaster, rampant speculation abounds on what actually happened. Wild talk flourishes on the Internet, TV, and radio. Was the Pentagon really struck by a missile? Was the untimely death of Barry Jennings, who witnessed the collapse of Tower 7 and thought he heard “explosions,” actually an assassination ? Not everyone is convinced the truth is out there. Once again, in this updated edition of the critically acclaimed Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics counters the conspiracy theorists with a dose of hard, cold facts. The magazine consulted more than 300 experts in fields like air traffic control, aviation, civil engineering, fire fighting, and metallurgy, and then rigorously, meticulously, and scientifically analyzed the 25 most persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Order at Amazon for $8.91

I would point out the many fallacies of the theory but that would just lead to people arguing with points that have been brain washed into people's head by Darwinist propaganda. I will however list a few quotes from well-known specialists in their field who did at one point support the theory of evolution and might know a little more about it than the average person. Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea): It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked.  Derek Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record.” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132. Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department: We conclude—unexpectedly—that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.  H.A. Orr and Jerry Coyne (1992), “The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment,” American Naturalist, pp. 140, 726. Dr. Albert Fleischman, zoologist at the University of Erlangen: The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.  November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, is a Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden: My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint.  Roger Lewin, In the Age of Mankind, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988. p. 22.  Paul Lemoine, a former Director of the National Museum of Natural History at Paris: The theories of evolution in which our student youth was cradled constitute a dogma that all the world continues to teach. But each in his own specialty, zoologist or botanist, comes to the conclusion that none of the available explanations is adequate. . . . The result of this summary is that the theory of evolution is impossible.  Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (lund, Swewden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 31. Christopher Wills Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years: Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. Introduction: De (Evolution), Encyclopedie Française, Vol. 5 (1937) p. 6. H. S. Lipson, the British physicist: I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example).I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.  H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist Look at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138 Gregory Alan Pesely is Professor of Philosophy: One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology.   G.A. Peseley, “The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection,” Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38 (Feb. 1982), p. 74. Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London’s Natural History Museum, editor of the museum’s journal and author of the book Evolution: Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view—well, let’s callt non-evolutionary—was [that] last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long. . . So for the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the E volutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago— a very prestigious body of evolutionists—and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’  Dr. Colin Patterson, “Evolution and Creationism: Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?” Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University: Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.  Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 130. By the way I am not like other Muslims and I do not bow down when I pray. I like up to the sky as God is far above what you associate with Him. To you be your religion and to me be mine. volutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago— a very prestigious body of evolutionists—and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’  Dr. Colin Patterson, “Evolution and Creationism: Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?” Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University: Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.  Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 130. By the way I am not like other Muslims and I do not bow down when I pray. I look up to the Heavens when I pray as God is far above what you associate with Him. To you be your religion and to me be mine. There is much evidence that refutes the theory. Such as fossils from the early Cambrian period which scientists agree appeared Ina short geological time frame of 5 to 10 million years. Around 50 phyla emerged with no evolutionary ancestors. They possesed complex features and organs, were spread throught the world and were vastly different. The argument that their ancestors had soft-shelled bodies and could not be preserved does not hold up because many of their soft tissue features had been preserved and many pre-Cambrian fossils have been found as well as single cell organsims with soft tissue from 3.5 billion years ago. Furthermore, the fossils such as trilobytes show no type of change from when they first appear to the last time they appear in the fossil record. Scientists do not want to admit evolution is defeated because of their adherence to a materialist view of the world. That's why the discovery of Cambrian fossils that contradicted the theory was covered up for 70 years.

Reality will not convince those who want to believe the theory of evolution because it gives them a reason to not believe God exists. The theory is based on imagination and wishful thinking.

1. He thinks that his friends are more important than me, he treats them with more respect then he treats me. Ex. when his friends call him into the next room, he immediately responds; when i call him he finishes current conversation and gets to me when he is done. 2. He never admits fault; its always me. Ex. he asked me to get a napkin for him (we were both currently eating and equal distances from the napkins) I said I'm not going to get you a napkin and then after wards its my fault we argued because i didn't get him the napkin. (what ever the situation, in the end (according to him) I start it. 3. He never wants to talk about marriage, no one in his family is married and so he wants to do that when he is "financially" ready; which i believe never happens. 4. He never listens! Ex. We got stranded at a gas station because he failed to get a new battery (like i told him to do) or ill repeat myself 10 times before he hears me (only when in front of his friends) 5. He doesn't stand up for me. Ex. his friend calls me fat; he says nothing. 6. He doesn't hardly say he loves me. My argument is simply going to be to debunk every "example" used in the previous paragraph. I don't always "immediately" go respond to one of my roommates (that is the friends she is talking about), as a matter of fact I just told one of them that I will chill with them later to come in here and write this. She expects me to respond to her at the snap of her fingers. Ex. My roommates and us were in his room talking (excuse me, she wants me to emphasize the fact that we "walked in together to ask a question").When he left the room me and my other roommate stood there for about 10 seconds at most before she said "well this is awkward, we walked in together and now you are not leaving with me" and then continued to grab my hand and pull me out. OK, now the whole napkin thing was like this, I simply asked if she could go get it and she said "why can't you get?" and not 5 seconds afterward I did, whispering the same thing she said basically. as I was walking she also said "you are so lazy"(this is btw something that happened today which lead up to writing this so sorry if it sounds stupid). I do not want to get married now I am only 19 and yes i believe that most of it is due to my background but her and her family try to push this idea of getting married ASAP on me all the time and that's why I react the way I do when it keeps coming up. The battery thing also happened today, I just didn't get it done soon enough and it was my mistake, but that's all it was, a mistake. It was not because I "don't listen", it was simply that I didn't get it done. I don't know why but I truly do not hear her until she raises her voice. most of the time she calls out for me when I am in someone's room and she has the door closed. -I only said he was lazy after he asked me 2 more times to get the damn napkins. for the record i didnt think the whole walking in his roommates room thing was THAT big of a deal.- screw the whole napkin situation, you guys are not gonna know what really happened so it doesnt matter.

Ok, just wanted to know your opinion on this. I have noticed that whenever anyone asks a question about the Crusades, the answerers, save an enlightened few, will preach about how wonderful the Muslims were and how barbaric and idiotic the Christians were and, of course, how the Christians were in it purely for trading reasons, or for looting/plundering/slave trading reasons, or just to make their religion dominant over the earth. Allow me to quote a brilliant author to debunk these claims. Islamic superiority of science and technology. “It is often said by the PC (politically correct), and even most people who are not usually taken in by the PC, that the Islamic countries of the medieval period were more advanced than the kingdoms of the Christian West. The PC even go so far as to claim this was due to Christianity, in fact, it is very common to hear Christianity kept Europe in the Dark Ages. But the PC ignores the fact that the Turks are known as great conquerors. Few of them seem to realize that the Turks took the technology of the conquered people (including Christians). Few people also seem to recognize that the purely Christian East Roman Empire was the most advanced nation in the world, far more advanced than the Turks. So it’s obvious that Christianity is not the reason behind the Dark Ages. But it is curious that as soon as the Turks stopped conquering advanced places, such as the provinces of Byzantium (East Rome), their “Golden Age” also stopped. Is this just a coincidence? I think not. The Muslims are told that asking too many questions is a bad thing. I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.'" Bukhari:V2B24N555 I constantly hear Muslims saying Islam encourages science- particularly medicine. But this too is not true. "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, ‘There is healing in black cumin for all diseases except death.'" Bukhari:V7B71N592 You see? There is healing for everything! Therefore there is no need for research of medicine…” And if you can’t ask questions or anything of that sort, that certainly makes science hard. The Crusades. “… But few even realize that it was not as bad as it is made out to be by the PC. The Crusades were actually a defensive action against the Muslims’ Jihad. Muhammad himself attacked Christians, and encouraged others to follow his example when he was dead. And they did- indeed they did. They conquered the holy land, much of Spain, and much of Byzantium. Still however, the Christians were not about to do anything to defend themselves. It was only after the Emperor of the East Roman Empire (Byzantium) pleaded to the Pope that Christians started standing up to the Muslims. The Pope called for the first Crusade in 1095, and when you consider Christians were attacked in the time of Muhammad, that’s a long time to wait. Very few realize the Crusades were defensive actions however, and until they do, they will remain too scared to question Islam for fear of their own religion being questioned. Does all this mean the Crusaders were guiltless? Absolutely not. They were very cruel to some conquered people. But this was not endorsed by their religion- that was just something conquerors of the time did.” Saladin is usually the prime example of Islamic tolerance and almost inhuman goodness. But, if we look more closely at the character we will find he is prime example of Islamic goodness; but not for the reason you would expect. Saladin’s sparing of the people of Jerusalem is the most commonly targeted example of his mercy. It’s a good thing too. Saladin wasn’t quite so merciful to the other conquered cities. But was he merciful to the city of Jerusalem? Let’s go over the facts. He laid siege to the city. He offered them freedom if they could pay him. They accepted. Those who didn’t pay and were left behind were brutally beheaded. Not too merciful now, is it? I could go on and on and on and on with reasons and facts to disprove those silly myths, but I will not bother adding more. So here’s the question. Do you agree or disagree with me? Do you think the Muslims are wonderful people of outstanding character and the Christians are cruel barbarians even though Muslims being wonderful completely contradicts the rules of their holy book? Thanks for answering. yishmael99. You’re answer was rather incoherent… So I’m not going to bother responding to it. It would be rather embarrassing to argue with you about something you weren’t arguing, lol. Michael M. “the real question should be why does it mean anything to you anyway; you weren't there, you aren't there, and if you had a chance to go back to pre-civilization I don't think you would.” Why? For the same reason that any historical misunderstanding is important to me. But, more importantly, it is an extremely important factor in the current Islamic conflict. And, yes, I wouldn’t go back there if I could. “You should let sleeping dogs rest, and worry more about bringing peace between cultures and religion's today.” There only religion that is really clashing is Islam (it clashes with every religion). That’s one of the reasons I am talking about this. It goes to show you that the Muslims mind frame hasn’t changed. They still want world domination (as they are told to in the koran). And by the way, your answer was highly irrelevant. Iconophobe. Ok, I would just like to start this off by saying what an arrogant know-it-all you are. You obviously haven’t read my question, and if you have then you haven’t paid much attention- either that you are just stupid, but I’d prefer not to consider that. “Where did the Jews run to after the Spanish Inquisition? (The MUSLIM Ottoman Empire).” Yes, that’s very true. Can you guess why they did? Because the Jews ran the economic system for the Muslims while they were preoccupied with conquering the Christians and, of course, because the Muslims were not nearly as adept at such things as the Jews were. The Christians started the Inquisition because, not only did the Jews run their economy, but they also wrote many anti-Christian letters which angered the Christians greatly (and when you consider that the more they helped the Muslims, the more they hurt the Christians, you can see why they were angry). This, of course, by no means justified what they did during the Inquisition. “These are all historical facts - do your research.” Do a little research yourself. Muhammad attacked Christians and his followers followed his example, example of rape, pillage, murder, conquering, etc. They were the first to attack the Christians. “yes Islam spread and for a reason” It did spread for a reason. BIG armies and vicious Muslims! “with it it brought prosperity and freedom to the conquered” Wrong again. Muslims did most certainly not bring prosperity. Get a history book and read it please. “Why did muslims land in Spain” Because they were conquerors? Duh! “Why did muslims take over al Sham so successfully?” BIG armies and vicious Muslims! “Did Christianity survive under the muslims in these regions?” Absolutely. But, it wasn’t surviving well. The Christians were abused, killed and humiliated in nearly every way. They paid outrageous taxes, couldn’t hold religious services when a Muslims was in the area, were forced to shave their heads, slapped and had their beards pulled as a sign of humiliation when it was tax time, etc. “Did Islam survive under Christian rule in Spain?” Would you let a religion that encourages rape, torture, terrorism, murder, and worldwide subjugation of peoples with different religions survive in your lands? No. And when you consider what the Muslims had done to them, it’s hardly surprising they reacted in that manner. “Your debate is all over the place and is fuelled by hatred. If you can provide some encyclopaedic links or historical references-we may debate-“ Funny thing is, you insulted, you lied (or are terribly brain-washed), and your answer is terribly idiotic. I think you have that backwards. but your personal attacks on Islam suggest somewhat of a bigoted attitude. Not really concentrated on the subject but more emotional.” Personal attacks? If you said the Crusaders were cruel and barbaric would you be using personal insults against the Crusaders? No, you would be stating facts. That is exactly what I was doing. Stop being so emotional, it’s causing you to be irrational. Get your facts and your emotions in line (you’ll probably need to get your life in line too as you seem to be a Muslim [otherwise I don’t think you would be so emotional]).

Muslim armies had conquered much of northern Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain, which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world. Thousands, and possibly millions, of Christians died during this drive to eventually bring the entire world under Islam. The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to check the advance of the Muslims and regain control of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. I am sure that some atrocities were committed by both sides during this war but by most people's judgment this was a just war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade With love in Christ.