Greatest scientific lies

[eliot mayfield]

My personal favorite was this one:
The phlogiston theory was a scientific theory, stated in 1667 by Johann Becher, in addition to the classical four elements of the Greeks, there was an additional fire-like element called “phlogiston” that was contained in combustible bodies, and released, during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as combustion and the rusting of metals




But this one is a dozzy too!

Pleomorphism


In the early decades of the 20th century, the term was used to refer to the supposed ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically or to exist in a number of extreme changing forms. This claim sparked a controversy among the microbiologists and split them into two schools: the monomorphists, and the pleomorphists . Monomorphic theory, emerged to become the dominant paradigm in modern medical science.
It is now almost universally accepted that each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape.

No, they come from GOD!!!!!!!!

[Talitha]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

I'm sorry Brother but you've completely confused me now.
After attempting to read your Post I've ended up with a headache. I actually thought for one minute you were speaking in Tongues

[eliot mayfield]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Yes, I should have put it in the men's forum.

[Talitha]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Yes, I should have put it in the men's forum.

Is there anything about Fluffy Kittens or Flower arranging in there?

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Those silly scientists can't even figure out how many legs an insect has or how to classify bats. The fact that anyone takes them at all seriously anymore just goes to show you that people would rather go along with the crowd than learn the truth.

[eliot mayfield]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Not to mention a platypus!

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Yes, I should have put it in the men's forum.

There are some parallels here Brother Mayfield. Scientists, like women, are always changing their minds.

[G-Baby]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

LoL, I thought you guys 'believed' that the idea of cells is nonsense!?!

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

There are some parallels here Brother Mayfield. Scientists, like women, are always changing their minds.

Actually, now I come to think of it, there are some quite compelling parallels between scientists and platypuses.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

I'm still waiting for the evolutionists to explain THIS:

A fossilized hammer was found in a formation famous for its dinosaurs, supposed to be 140 million years old (lower cretaceous).

Max Han was fishing with his family near London, TX when he found a rock with wood protruding from it. When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed.

The wood handle is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions. Tests performed at Battelle Laboratory document the hammer’s unusual metallurgy, 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and .74% sulfur (no carbon). Density test indicate casting of exceptional quality. A unique coating of FeO, which does not readily form under present atmospheric conditions, appears to inhibit rusting.

So, monkey-worshippers....I'm waiting!

[Peter]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

My personal favorite was this one:
The phlogiston theory was a scientific theory, stated in 1667 by Johann Becher, in addition to the classical four elements of the Greeks, there was an additional fire-like element called “phlogiston” that was contained in combustible bodies, and released, during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as combustion and the rusting of metals

When the phlogiston theory was stated, there was no real knowledge of the elements. Now we know that there are a lot of elements. The combustion and the rusting of metal is a reaction with oxygen (that's why they call it oxidation).
E.g. the rusting of iron:
O2 + 2Fe --> 2FeO
Another example: the combustion of methane:
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O

But this one is a dozzy too!

Pleomorphism


In the early decades of the 20th century, the term was used to refer to the supposed ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically or to exist in a number of extreme changing forms. This claim sparked a controversy among the microbiologists and split them into two schools: the monomorphists, and the pleomorphists . Monomorphic theory, emerged to become the dominant paradigm in modern medical science.
It is now almost universally accepted that each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape.

A cell has the ability to split and bacteria are creatures that consist out of 1 cell, so therefore bacteria can split into more bacteria.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Your just proving Brother Eliot's point, Pete. These silly scientists can't keep their own lies straight.

By the the time scientists finally climb to the top of the mountain of knowledge, they'll find that we Bible-Believing True Christians have been there all along.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Peter]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Your just proving Brother Eliot's point, Pete. These silly scientists can't keep their own lies straight.

By the the time scientists finally climb to the top of the mountain of knowledge, they'll find that we Bible-Believing True Christians have been there all along.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

No I don't prove his point. I said that the theories of phlogiston were not completely correct, but they did know that there was an element that was responsible for rusting and combustion.

And the text about the cells splitting is completely correct, cells split. Cells don't come from your imaginary friend.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

And the text about the cells splitting is completely correct, cells split.

Care to explain how multi-cellular organisms could evolve from single-cellular organisms?

Nobody has ever observed even a simple one-cell organism evolve..
It has never been observed changing into a multi-cellular organism, despite the fact that most have extremely short generations.
And yet it has never been observed.


Whenever "micro-evolution" is observed, traits that are already there get stronger, while others decrease:
That would mean that you only have so much "genetic material".
Which is able to create quite different members of one species (dogs for instance) but they are still the same species.
Despite attempts at it, giving wide diversity in looks and behaviour, dogs stay dogs.
They don't become a new kind of creature, because they only contain the "genetic material" (you would call it DNA) of a dog.
You can't create new "genes" - Thus, evolution (macro) is impossible.


And face fact here:
Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed, and there is no evidence for it.
All you have is fossils of creatures that doesn't exist now, and that's it.
You have no proof whatsoever that they're actually some kind of "ancestor" to the creatures of today.
You only THINK so, no - You only BELIEVE so!

Evolution isn't a fact, it's about as far from it as one can get.

[Peter]

Re: Greatest scientific lies

Care to explain how multi-cellular organisms could evolve from single-cellular organisms?

Nobody has ever observed even a simple one-cell organism evolve..
It has never been observed changing into a multi-cellular organism, despite the fact that most have extremely short generations.
And yet it has never been observed.

Actually, there is proof of single-cellular organisms that evolve into multi-cellular organisms.
The first multi-cellular organisms were aggregations of identical cells (volvox).

Whenever "micro-evolution" is observed, traits that are already there get stronger, while others decrease:
That would mean that you only have so much "genetic material".
Which is able to create quite different members of one species (dogs for instance) but they are still the same species.
Despite attempts at it, giving wide diversity in looks and behaviour, dogs stay dogs.
They don't become a new kind of creature, because they only contain the "genetic material" (you would call it DNA) of a dog.
You can't create new "genes" - Thus, evolution (macro) is impossible.

When an animal gets babies they pass on their DNA, so the DNA has to be "copied", this "copying" isn't always perfect, so mutations can occur. Those mutations in the DNA gives the new animal some slight changes. After lots of generations (and lots of changes in the DNA), it could be possible that there is a new species or sub-species.

And face fact here:
Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed, and there is no evidence for it.
All you have is fossils of creatures that doesn't exist now, and that's it.
You have no proof whatsoever that they're actually some kind of "ancestor" to the creatures of today.
You only THINK so, no - You only BELIEVE so!

1. Your grammar isn't correct.
2.There is proof of it.