I am creating this site just to spite some idiotic teacher of mine who thinks science means something. All it is for is to disgrace science and that damn teacher with no life or tastes. On this site you will find logical reasons to hate science. I will prove it doesn't make any sense. If you like science you can piss off, I didn't ask you to come here. Get the hell off of my site, before it catches a disease. |
Why don't I start with the beginning of these crackpots' theories? Oops, I mean the universe (oh wait, no I don't). These idiots seem to think that the universe began with an explosion. Keep in mind these are the same idiots who (in their lectures) snicker when they explain to the class that way back in the (blah blah) hundreds people used to believe that a giant turtle was rolling the sun across the sky. "Wow aren't they stupid class?" "Copernicus was a genius though, I guess he's an idiot too then, what does that make you?" Shut up, idiot. Copernicus was a hell of a lot smarter than 99.9% of all scientists. He was actually even convincing. He was so confident, he wrote about how stupid the people were who doubted him. I would have believed him. He had so much evidence to support his theory (a lot more than today's idiots) that it was hard to argue with him. As for one of those things he was most confident in, he was wrong. Unless you believe the sun is the center of the universe (everyone knows I am today). I guess I should have started with scientists themselves. They are hippies. They do drugs and create chickens with 6 legs and 1 eye that live for one hour and then die. What came first? The abomination who created that chicken in his laboratory, or the abomination he created? That should stump those morons. Don't believe me? Think that they don't do bullshit like that? Ask around. I'm guessing you don't go to college. Why would they do that? They are hippies, like I've said before. They look for answers for things only an idiotic scientist or conspiracy theorist (thin line, if any, between these two) would try to make up an answer for. The stupidest being the "Big Bang". Suitable for the kind of person who believes it. Where do YOU suppose they found proof of this? They're keeping it secret so they don't make a shit load of money from it. Yeah right. |
Out of this gigantic explosion (because of which planets are still moving outward after an estimated time span that was completely pulled out of their ass, so there is no use mentioning it. We might as well go with 1 million trabillion years) came living things and elements. Particles combined all over the place and formed planets. Microscopic dots evolved into plants, which then made oxygen, so we were able to eventually evolve from other microscopic dots (scientists have footage of this)*See at bottom of paragraph. "Wait. Our great, great, great (1 billion times) grandfathers were microscopic dots?" "Yes." "So then we are related to every species?" "A lot that you'd find surprising, yes." "How can I trust you? You look high." "We scientists get high ALL the time. How did you think we came up with such bullshit?" They actually believe we share a common ancestor with yeast by the way. About common ancestors, which are more closely related to each other? Scientists got together and found out. They used a large dichotomous key. Which is basically dividing things into groups which are divided into groups into more and more groups. The first question they asked: "Which animals have hair?" They divided all the living things up into 2 groups. Next question (for the ones which have hair)(I swear I'm not joking): "Which animals' anuses form before their mouths?" Which is pretty ironic considering it is unarguably a much more sensible question to ask from which hole that question came from. Put that shit back up your asses. They continued grouping until they've narrowed everything down for no beneficial reason. They then gave all the animals names. Latin names, that's where carnivorous lupus and other idiotic names come from (that are supposed to be in italics, but I don't give a damn about Latin, or respect it at all). They've divided things into 5 (some say 6) kingdoms, which were divided into phyla, orders, families, classes, genuses, and species. They came up with the obviously wrong "fact" that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than other reptiles, and other bullshit. Someone asked the wrong question. If they would have asked, "Does the thing have scales or not?" before crap about embryology, they would have come up with something nothing like what they did now. They are too stupid to realize this. I'll prove how stupid they are: Question #1: "Is the thing at least 90% covered in hair?" That puts us in a much different place than apes. If humans had scales, wouldn't the first question most likely have been "Does the animal have scales?" Which would have completely thrown the stupid bird related to dinosaur shit out the window. It's impossible idiots, keep attempting to do it, so I can keep laughing. Why do they believe their own lies? They are arrogant, drugged up morons, that's why. *There is no footage. If you scrolled down to look for it, get off my site. This was a test to see if you're stupid or not. |
Classify ALL living things? These idiots don't know the difference between a living thing and the shit that comes out of their mouths. What does make up a living thing? Scientists say cells (most important thing). Let's flush this to where it belongs. Well, let's stop picking on scientists for one second (except for between the lines). Scientists do not exist (let's pretend). You notice under a microscope that there are things inside of a dissected animal that you will call "cells" (I call them "microscopic bullshit"). You look at another animal and find the same stuff. Then you look at humans and find all those cells too. You then notice them inside of plants! Who'd have known they were living? You assume they're living because you have found cells inside every obviously living thing anyone ever saw, which isn't illogical enough to be criticized for. Then you find them in microscopic things, let's not argue for now that some mindful people could start questioning. Then, AHA! You have found a microscopic thing with no cells. It runs. It reproduces. There are millions of kinds of these. You call them "viruses." But, there are no cells. How can this be? You and everyone who works with you are going to look like idiots! Everyone who said all that shit about things not living just because they have cells may be RIGHT! What are you going to do? Are you going to take it like a man, and admit your mistakes? ....Or are you going to say these "viruses" are not living? Guess what arrogant, stupid, I-MUST-BE-RIGHT scientists say? Do I have to tell you? They look at a bunch of other things common in all living things and point out that viruses do not have metabolism, homeostasis, or growth, so they, by definition, are not living. Oh, yeah? Is that the definition moron? I could have sworn that's what you were looking for. Oh, and since cells don't have cells, how can you idiots call them living, but not viruses? Cells don't even do anything. They sit on their asses. "THEY'RE ALIVE!" Along comes something that hops onto it, infects it, reproducing in the process, runs away, but isn't alive. On top of that, (I don't know how they get away with it) they think they know exactly what is going on inside of cells. Go look in a text book, or on the internet, I'm not posting stupid pictures. It is basically a microscopic dot with microscopic dots inside of it. Even if you saw it as clearly as shown in a textbook, you still wouldn't actually suggest any of the shit scientists do. You witness a microscopic dot that moves from point A to point B. Are you going to say it is transmitting messages? Are you going to say it is cleaning the cell up (ribosomes' job, man scientists are geniuses)? Are you going to exaggerate this microscopic dot into a 30 letter compound word? Scientists do all that shit. Idiots: You aren't fooling any one outside of your own IQ (-160, mine the opposite). You can't tell what something is doing by looking at it. Why am I the only one to see a problem like this and mention it? I don't see any other site out there that tells of this garbage. Does someone have to point it out? Are people that stupid? They will listen to and believe anything that comes from someone because they have authority, but don't have the common sense to see NONE of these idiots have more authority than you could? All you have to do is go to some dumbass college that teaches bullshit, learn from a doped professor, and you, too, are eligible to come up with absolute SHIT. There is a reason for having no proof to things sometimes. Always because there is none. Most of the time being also because it isn't true. |
Random Facts that strengthen my point by making scientists look ridiculous: |
1. Scientists believe that chopping something into two pieces that can both live constitutes reproduction. |
2. Scientists believe moving and reproducing doesn't constitute living, but lots of things with no sperm or eggs are considered living. |
Oh, and by the way, my email is mun090@msn.com for all of you morons who think you can argue with me without looking like an idiot. You will. |
|
|
|
|
|
