Science Versus the Ignorant Fools

By 76 Comments 3,515 views

Primitive Man and Science

Primitive Man and Science

On Thursday, the state-directed media went ballistic when Scott Walker was asked his opinion of evolution. Unlike the majority of Americans and the entire liberal media complex, Scott Walker does not consider himself an expert on scientific problems he knows almost nothing about.

The man who first described Quantum Physics, made this observation after a lifetime of scientific study.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Father of Quantum Physics

Real Science is What Matters

Real Science is What Matters

Now, the integrity of state-directed journalists is being called into question by even the most humble members of society, and the disparity of concern for the scientific opinions of a successful governor or the lack of concern over the illustrated ignorance of American and world history by a failing Commander-in-Chief is comical. While scientific research in the White House has been limited, a knowledge of American History is considered essential. Thus the ludicrous insinuations of state-directed media becomes patently obvious, when a propaganda writer asks:

“Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?”

Walker answered that he would punt on the issue, but threw in this measure of sanity, like a bone to the government’s panting whores posing as journalists:

“That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”

Our president would never pass up an opportunity to offer sage advice on scientific and philosophical questions, areas he seems to have more of a deficit in than the average erudite citizen, but a lack of expertise has never prevented him from weighing in on complex subjects, with a charming delivery and a complete lack of substance. However, after the last seven years of watching this stumbling fool being coddled by media, the tables have forever turned. The new media will not be playing the games of the non-objective state-directed media and the new objective media is winning over a public that has lost faith in traditional media; especially, since the efforts to protect the image of this president from public scrutiny and derision were so painfully obvious.

Fools may continue to quote dubious experts on scientific issues that have become political issues, but the informed public has grown wary of listening to useful idiots repeating meaningless talking points. In fact, the continuous hammering of ignorance over substance has become counter productive to the thinking citizens; so let the Left play the games of fools, we will rely on facts and science from experts, and make our own assessments.

We Can Observe and Make Our Own Decisions

We Can Observe and Make Our Own Decisions

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has finished an historical novel that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The book Fifty-Thousand Years is awaiting me to finish a final proofread and it should be sent to the formatter in a matter of days. I am still working, so it is not easy to devote the time I need to finish the project. The cover is a beautiful wok of art. I would put it up here if I could figure out how to make it work.

76 Responses to “Science Versus the Ignorant Fools”

  1. 51

    George Wells

    @Pete #50:

    I’ll be perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you at any point that you tire of our conversation. Until then, let’s have a go at it, shall we?

    First of all, I gave you a pass the first times you made this sloppy mistake:
    “Over the estimated 14-15 trillion years (based on ‘Big Bang Theory’ conceptualization of the expansion of the universe)…”
    “…such that for the last 14 trillion years and continuing forward for however many trillions more…”
    …but now you again post:
    “restarting the process again for another cycle of multiple trillions of years?”
    …leading me to surmise that you are speaking cleverly like the chimpanzee who mimics his handler’s gesture without knowing its meaning. A true man of science would never mistake trillions for billions, much less make the same mistake three times. Check your facts if you wish to score points with them.

    Second: “The Higgs Boson analogy doesn’t actually work in the context under discussion, since the math that was used to predict the existence of the Higgs Boson doesn’t violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, nor the laws of entropy.”

    My mention of the Higgs boson was as an example of a recent discovery that advanced a theory into the “fact” column. I used it instead of Einstein’s “THEORY” of Relativity, because Einstein’s theory remained just that – an unproven theory – for so long that by the time it was actually empirically proven, the theory name had become part of the common lexicon. Not a good example of my point. But I apologize if I somehow led you to believe that I thought that the Higgs boson violates physical laws. How could it? Nothing in our realm of experience has that option. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t alternate realities in parallel universes, or that events happening beyond our sensory capacity are necessarily the products of a divine being’s will – or not.

    Chew on this:
    “With all the black holes being found (that don’t give off light/heat) you would think if white holes existed we might have found such bright, matter-and-energy-spewing objects in the sky.”
    Haven’t we?
    Quasars? You seem ready enough to question SOME theories, why not question the prevailing theory that quasars are the uber-energetic physical products of the accretion disks surrounding SOME black holes (but not others)? How can we be sure that they aren’t those “white holes” you wonder about? Quasars are found in the centers of galaxies – might they not be the source of the associated galaxy’s mass, it having been spit out from a black hole’s… rectum, the quasar being the secondary product? Just wondering…

    Regarding your musing over the relative merits of the One Big Bang theory as opposed to the Oscillating Universe theory, I read a piece on the theoretical mathematics behind the theory that, given enough time, it was statistically impossible for SOMETHING to NOT spontaneously generate from nothing. Now, if you can’t comprehend the difference between billions and trillions of years, (sorry, my bad) there is absolutely no way that you are going to grasp the infinite expanse of nothing that necessarily HAD to proceed this germinal “something”. The mathematics were so far beyond me that I was the proverbial ant under the shoe – I can’t begin to explain it. But my intuition told me that there was a kernel of possibility buried in the discussion, and it intrigued me. In the extremity of such a possibility, divinity would be indistinguishable from science in this ant’s eye.

  2. 52

    George Wells

    Don’t scamper off, tail tucked between your legs, to cower in the shadows licking your wounds.

    Prove that you are more than a backward-tilted parrot, repeating your programmed distractions from the truth that science reveals until someone tosses you a question you haven’t been coached on.

    Prove the flaws in my logic, or demonstrate convincingly by your failure how easy it is to silence the righteously indignant by exposing the fallibility of their dogma.

    I gave you a couple of real ideas in #51, not the trite partisan mush that passes so easily for intelligent conversation here at FA. Not “leftist” hyperbole, as if anything other than faith is necessarily “leftist.” I was hoping that you’d share a few honest thoughts of your own for a change, but if you find thinking to be too much of a challenge, I’ll understand.

  3. 53


    @George Wells:

    George, pardon me for having duties and resposibilities that prevent me from answering your every post within minutes to days of their birth. Coming to this site is an enjoyable diversion, but is not the most pressing endeavor of my existence.

    You definitely got me on the trillion versus billion error. Sloppy brain fart on my part, no question about that, however the point is still the same.

    Your quasar point is an interesting theory. As I have already confessed to being a physics neophyte, all I can say on this point is that I have not seen any real physicists put forth the concept that quasars could be the “white holes” theorized to be the outflow spigots of black holes. That does not mean I am saying it isn’t a possibility, and as a diversion it seems intriguing to look at, but I would think actual physicists would have put forth such a theory by now if it seemed realistic. Maybe someone has – I do not know.

    I am no mathematician, either, but I have a very difficult time believing that statistics – no matter how elevated the math – can prove something bound by the laws of the physical universe is capable of violating the law of conservation of matter and energy, as well as the law of entropy, as you imply. Saying that there is a mathematical equation that proves you must be able to get something from nothing makes as much sense as saying you must be able to divide by zero. Infinity is not a realistically quantifiable answer, even though one can write the symbols “anything divided by 0 equals infinity”. In other words, once entropy has achieved ultimate dissolution of all energy in the universe to an utterly equivalent state – however long it would take to achieve – what force exists that could reverse entropy?

    Taking your “black hole vacuum to white hole spigot” theory under consideration, you seem to be leaning towards a cosmic perpetual motion system, positing gravitational effect as the underlying force. This would seem, to my admittedly rudimentary grasp of physics, to ignore entropy.

    Oh, and if you want to engage in civil debate on a topic in which that neither of us have but the thinnest of expertise, I am more than happy to do so. But if you prefer the snide, adolescent churlishness you have displayed in particular in your two most recent posts, I cheerfully invite you to pound sand. Friendly debate over differing opinions can be enjoyable and informative, but it is a waste of time discoursing with a fading peacock whose primary interest is in stroking his insecure ego as he vomits his antipathy towards those who belive in the existence of God.

  4. 54

    George Wells

    @Pete #53:
    “Friendly debate over differing opinions can be enjoyable and informative”

    I couldn’t agree more, and I was disappointed when you did not answer my post 51 of Feb. 21st, while addressing others. (I checked.)
    You are smarter and you put more thought into your posts than other contributors here, and I was afraid that you were giving up on me. Purely selfish of me, I admit. But I believed that I had to chide you into responding. I’m concluding that you comprehended from my #52 that I was not really insulting you, but inviting you back, as you indeed took the invitation.

    If you’ll agree to forego the snarky “fading peacock whose primary interest is in stroking his insecure ego as he vomits his antipathy towards those who believe in the existence of God” stuff, I’ll lay off the “backward-tilted parrot, repeating your programmed distractions from the truth that science reveals until someone tosses you a question you haven’t been coached on” stuff.
    Can we do that?

    I read a piece that stated that white holes “could only exist if they were built into the initial conditions of the Big Bang.” I find that idea enormously counter-intuitive, since my inordinately linear mind agrees with other theories that explain that the mathematic characterization of black holes and white holes is fundamentally identical. The theoretical models that attempt to describe white holes posit black holes that spin phenomenally fast as being the likely host of the “white hole phenomenon.” What I have read about quasars also posits a source that is spinning ridiculously fast. Where, exactly, WOULD the consumption of a black hole wind up? It is enough that the information entering into a black hole would not be lost, satisfying your conservation dilemma, while it could end up just about anywhere, having traveled the length of whatever wormhole the spinning black hole wove, and satisfying the requirements of relativity along the way. White holes and quasars are both said to be extraordinarily, almost impossibly bright. Aren’t we finding quasars associated with concentrations of cosmic mass, as would be the case if they (white holes) were indeed the real-time exit wounds of black holes?
    “White holes became intriguing entities when it was suggested in 1971 by astrophysicist Robert M. Hjellming that white holes may be connected to black holes. In other words, the matter and light that is drawn into a black hole may escape elsewhere through a white hole, with the two connected in a manner similar to a wormhole.
    Unfortunately for Hjellming’s theory, the things that he was trying to explain using white holes (such as the massive energy outputs from quasars) have been explained in the intervening years through other means, so his theory has, in general, fallen out of favor.”

    First, Butter is good and margarine is bad, then margarine is good and butter is bad, and then back again. The answers to so many cosmological questions revolve on so few facts and so much speculative math that I will keep this idea in my back pocket for the rest of my life. My intuition tells me that there’s something to it.

    Regarding our “something from nothing” discussion, your:
    “Saying that there is a mathematical equation that proves you must be able to get something from nothing makes as much sense as saying you must be able to divide by zero.”

    I really wish that you had looked into this question a bit before concluding that:
    “Infinity is not a realistically quantifiable answer, even though one can write the symbols “anything divided by 0 equals infinity”, as this has nothing to do with the mathematics in question. It isn’t a matter of violating entropy. Entropy only comes into play once a relativistic universe’s clock has started ticking.

    I respectfully suggest that you Google “something from nothing mathematics” and read entries from the top down until you are satisfied that I am not making this stuff up. These aren’t crack-pot atheists; they’re theoretical astrophysicists working at the frontier of cosmological mathematics. They may be right. THEY MAY BE WRONG.

    I am not “vomiting antipathy towards those who believe in the existence of God.” I am expressing wonderment at a nearly infinite cosmos, and I am curious about its formation. I have no reason to believe that the Wuhan team’s solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and your GOD are not one and the same. HOW COULD I KNOW?

    P.S. Thanks for the nod on your trillions gaff. Sometimes brain farts are the only bugs my net catches, but I still enjoy the sport.

  5. 55


    @George Wells:

    With regard to placing other entries before replying to your post 51, please understand that my medical duties sometimes only allow a minute or two to engage in this diversion, and some posts do not require prolonged thought to provide an intelligent answer, while others require more time.

    I did take time to look into the quasar topic you brought up. My cursory review taught me the current most widely accepted theory, that quasars are the result of a high energy state surrounding an event horizon of large, galactically central black holes, resulting from incredible speeds attained by collosal amounts of matter essentially orbiting/falling into the black hole. This theory, if correct, would make the “black hole vacuum white hole spigot” theory untenable. In point of fact, there were a couple entries from physicists that explicitly stated white holes are solely theoretical, and there is no proof they exist.

    I am happy to look up the mathematical concept you mentioned. Maybe I will learn something new. I look forward to the opportunity.

  6. 56

    George Wells

    @Pete #55:
    My career was as an analytical chemist doing product development research, and a fundamental requirement of my work was to maintain a skepticism regarding so-called “conventional wisdom.” The alcoves of scientific discovery are littered with discarded theories once held in high esteem. Remember Schiaperelle’s Martian canals?
    Here’s a cute tongue-in-cheek one from 2004:
    “Infamous for re-evaluating his position in light of new facts, Stephen Hawking has now flip-flopped on his position regarding the ability of information to escape from the clutches of a black hole. Thirty years ago he held it was impossible; now he says it’s possible that SOME information may be able to escape.
    Who is this guy that he is unable to hold onto his position regardless of facts? Can he be trusted about ANYTHING if he re-evaluates EVERYTHING based upon new information!?!?!?”

    Hawking flip-flopped so often that there is a line of Flip-Flops marketed in his name.

    Theories never deserve worship. They require the most aggressive efforts possible to disprove them. It is through this trial-by-fire that their metal is tested for worthiness.

    I am reminded that for all of the corroborating evidence that black holes exist (and I don’t doubt for one minute that they do exist) nobody has ever actually seen one, and white holes may remain beyond the limits of our sensory capacity for similar reasons. Must the matter consumed by a black hole necessarily condense into a discrete bolus and travel the length of a finite wormhole in much the same way that fecal matter eventually exits an intestinal tract? Or might it undergo unanticipated dispersion and transformation, scattered randomly in the form of dark matter, in a dimension other than from whence it came. This is but an idle musing, but the point is that there is little to restrict the possibilities other than whatever highly speculative theoretical mathematics happen to be the rage of the moment.

  7. 57

    George Wells

    @Pete #55:
    Per Max Plank as above:
    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”

    The inaccuracy of this description of the nature of matter notwithstanding, here is the quintessential ant’s perspective: mysteries beyond our comprehension must necessarily be the product of a being equally beyond our comprehension. Taking Plank’s word on this would be as rational as taking Joe Namath’s word on panty hose.

    The phrase “the proof is in the pudding” suggests that until pudding has finished cooking, been properly cooled and then been tasted, there is no way to be certain that it’s either good or bad. The same may be said of theories. So long as the jury is out, and neither proof nor disproof has survived rigorous corroboration, a theory is just a big “maybe.” Concluding prematurely that a theory is correct is an error equal to concluding prematurely that it is incorrect.

    As an Agnostic, I find insufficient evidence to prove that the Creationist Theory is either right or wrong. I find no fault with people who BELIEVE that it is correct, but I have little respect for people who insist that it is a scientifically provable fact. All too often, the argument they offer is that there is no proof that the universe created itself. The absence of proof of one theory does not constitute proof that the opposite theory is correct.
    Plank’s “assumption” is nothing more.

  8. 58


    @George Wells: Plank died almost 70 years ago. His findings were astounding to men who walked out of Africa a mere 60,000 years ago, without matches. Suddenly, Max Plank discovers the nature of quantum physics, is it not hard to imagine how that man might see the concept of quantum physics as being as close to God as humanly possible. We must remember, Plank was educated in the 19th Century. He was not immune to the culture and feelings of his era.

    We who consider ourselves so sophisticated may actually be jaded, with children working on advanced computers and speaking on cell phones, we are supposed to accept an ever-changing Theory of Global Warming. A theory that is politically driven and changed periodically to fit new data. A theory that can never be proven, but is readily accepted by peer review by scientists searching for elusive research grants with political overtones.

    Considering our willingness to accept an ever changing theory as fact, the idea of the father of Quantum Physics being awe inspired by the very nature of his discoveries is not that hard to imagine.

    Now if one of us can find out new and equivalent secrets of our world, we might feel qualified to ridicule Max Plank and decide whether our findings brought us closer to understanding the existence or non-existence of God, but until then, we might do better to admire the man for his accomplishments and humility.

  9. 59

    George Wells

    @Skookum #58:

    Thank you for a delightfully well-written post.

    I deeply regret if My #57 gave you the impression that I was “ridiculing” Max Plank, as nothing could be further from the truth. As an undergraduate taking physics and astronomy courses, I worshiped Plank for his achievements in theoretical physics that boldly took us where no one had thought before. He was and will always remain the pillar of science – and the “father of quantum mechanics” – for which he is correctly acknowledged.

    My remarks were intended only to make the point that no one – not Plank, not Einstein, not Hawking – escapes making errors. Especially when these great minds are exploring the unknown, and reaching the best possible conclusions on dreadfully incomplete information, the risk of being wrong is understandably high, and that the occasional error occurs is eminently forgivable. What is particularly unfortunate is that in this instance (and according to the quote above that the author attributed to Max Plank – I’m not personally familiar with the context of the quote) Plank was NOT engaging in science – the field in which his accomplishments were extraordinary. He was NOT reporting experimental results or hypothetically extrapolating from the known into the unknown. He simply stated an assumption – his words – that something approximating what we today call “intelligent design” was at work in the universe.

    A “assumption” isn’t science, it is a “belief.” The topic of this thread is “science,” and to that end, the author’s decision to quote Max Plank’s belief seems irrelevant. In terms of logical error, it is an appeal to the wrong authority.

  10. 61

    George Wells

    @Pete #60:
    “Using that logic, how can you side with the AGW cult insisting that AGW is “settled science”? This should also result in Darwin’s THEORY of evolution being viewed in the same light.”

    First of all, what makes you presume that I “side with the AGW cult.”?

    Regarding “global warming” in GENERAL, I think that GW is relatively “settled” science, although it should be more accurately referred to as “global climate fluctuation,” in which we are currently in a warming trend. I further think that the science that attributes this current warming to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is indisputable, as I have personally conducted laboratory experiments using closed systems radiated with fixed amounts of light approximating the sun’s spectra while varying the concentration of contained CO2. The internal temperatures vary in direct proportion to the CO2 concentration. THAT much is settled science. What is NOT settled is how much the provably increasing release of anthropomorphic CO2 is CONTRIBUTING to the overall equation. There is little question that it IS contributing, but whether or not that contribution is significant – or by how much – is in open debate.

    Obviously, I am NOT siding with a cult. I am rationally evaluating the science that I know to be true, and discounting unsupported claims on EITHER side of the oddly partisan argument over GW.

    Regarding Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution,” it is indeed just a theory. That’s why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution.” Although not PROVED to be the ONLY cause of speciation, the fossil record, while understandably incomplete, provides ample evidence in support of the theory. As more and more fossils are uncovered over time, more and more “missing links” are discovered, filling in the puzzle that will never be completely finished. Because the puzzle will never be finished, and because the puzzle’s completeness cannot disprove the agency of a “superior being”, the theory can’t ever be “proved.” However, fossils do represent discrete empirical data that is evidence in support of Darwin’s theory. So far as science is able to address the question, it IS “settled science.” It simply isn’t PROVEN, because, as I noted before, a negative proposition cannot be proven. In order to PROVE Darwin’s theory, GOD’s hand in speciation would need to be DISPROVED, and that can’t be done.

  11. 62


    No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

    ( —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.


    Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

    “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told

    Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

    Old ideas revisited

    The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

    In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das’s teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the ’90s.


    In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.


    Motivated by the model’s potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.

    “It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das said.

    Read the whole article. It’s rather interesting.

  12. 63


    I studied and accepted Darwin and evolution in undergraduate school, including the evolution of the horse: Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merrychippus, modern horse. The fossil record needed to prove evolution was sketchy at best, but everyone accepted the progression of the horse from a dog size animal to the half ton animal we have today as conclusive proof of the soundness of Darwin’s Theory. However, years later, I attended a lecture by Dr. Voorhees. He had unearthed a massive kill site in Nebraska that revealed the presence of all the stages of the horse in one mass grave. The seeds of doubt were sown; was I to believe the contrived theoretical text book explanations or the actual results of a dig?

  13. 64



    I would be curious about the carbon dating on that dig you mention, as it sounds as if these are coexistent separate breeds rather than evolutionary progression. What would a many millennium future counterpoint to “Voorhees” think on uncovering a buried pet store with remains of the wide variety of dogs within. Would they think that all these different breeds came about via natural selection, or by intelligent design?

  14. 65

    George Wells

    @Skookum and Ditto:

    Dr. Voorhees’ account of a “Massive Nebraska Kill Event” is an excellent example of an attempt to paint a faith-based message in the colors of science.
    First we’ll dissect his “science,” and then we will apply a bit of common sense to the question of accepting his premise.

    Voorhees claims to have found a discrete location where fossils of Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merrychippus and modern horse are all found (species which are currently thought to have lived over a range of approximately 50 million years and which are NOT thought to have co-existed), and this finding is offered as evidence that the currently accepted evolution of the horse from its paleontological relatives did not occur, and that in fact these different species DID co-exist.

    Skookum sowed the seeds of doubt with little fertilizer, however. His account failed to mention if the different species’ fossils were all found in the same strata or in different ones, and, more importantly, as Ditto noted, did not mention any carbon dating of those fossils, which would have been the FIRST test applied to corroborate the hypothesis.

    There exist numerous massive kill sites where tens of thousands of creatures perished over eons of time – peat bogs, tar pits and other particularly dangerous terrain hazards that possessed some attraction (like a surface pond) from which animals could not escape. The strata in such non-solid graves are often confused by the physical dynamics there-in, and carbon dating is the only reliable way to date fossils found in them.

    Were the identifications of these fossils confirmed by independent and unbiased paleontologists? Has there EVER been an INSTANCE in which a bone identified as belonging to a “modern horse” was carbon-dated to 50 million years old? Has a SINGLE, living Eohippus ever been located? An answer in the negative to ANY of these questions pretty much discredits Dr. Voorhees’ conjecture.

    From a common-sense perspective, consider that if Voorhees’ information was indeed correct, it would have been Earth-shattering. He would have received the Noble Prize in Paleontology for having DISPROVED Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Yet that didn’t happen. Neither Cambridge nor Oxford, not MIT or Cal Tech has stepped forward to confirm or embrace his claim. More likely this is another “Piltdown Man” hoax, where the fossil record has been abused to support a non-scientific agenda. From the lack of corroboration – the lack of peer consent – and from the absence of any realistic explanation or scientific support of the offered facts other than blind acceptance – ON FAITH – of the hypothesis, a rational person would reject the snake oil that Voorhees is selling.

  15. 66


    Yes George we have no bananas. Every find of primitive man type found in Olduvai Gorge by the Leakey Clan was assumed to be “Direct Links” on the path to modern man, while forgetting the fact that fossils only occur under conditions that are advantageous to preserving mineralized bone and that the vast majority of specimens return to dust in other locations.

    We are to assume that for millions of years and for countless changes to the species, man the great migrator or wanderer who followed food sources all over the world stayed in one geographical location to complete the evolution of his species over millions of years and the countless numbers of dead end species that were produced died out in places that didn’t see fit to preserve their remains in fossilized form.

    When our early lusty ancestors met Denovisian and Neanderthal some 20,000 years ago and found them to be new, exciting, and fertile to the point of producing offspring that were fertile, from what point on the earth’s surface did these two early forms of man evolve?

    Why did they leave a distinct mark in our genetic code?

    If all men evolve from Africa, why were these different men of different genetic typing and from what gorge did they evolve and if they fit the classification of unique species why do we carry their DNA or at least those of us who left Africa and ventured to Northern Europe and Asia, since no pure African is tainted with this cross species “contamination.”

    Using your indirect reasoning or logic, we can assume these two man species evolved somewhere besides Africa, but what are the odds of intelligent beings evolving from an australopithecine type being in two other places in the world, where fossilization is difficult. Please compute the odds on that one.

  16. 67


    @Ditto: It was an hour lecture from over 30 years ago. However it was valuable in that I began to question the tenets of science without documentation. Gaps in the fossilized record cannot be overcome with generalizations and after working on several digs, I saw that Carbon dating often led to conflicting results, probably from contamination. It was a problem, at least in those day of the 60’s. The digs I worked on were modern in comparison, 10,000 to 20,000 years ago and the margin of error was a greater percentage of these “modern” sites.

    I found thermal luminescence more intriguing than carbon depletion, but it wasn’t practical for our crude shards. Early man in the New World was always trying to produce clay fired cooking vessels. It made for flimsy cooking equipment, but there was a lot of broken pieces to analyze. LOL

    Think of the amazement, when stone age man saw copper and cast iron kettles, knives, and pans for the first time. It signaled the end of Stone Age Civilization. He and his people became obsolete instantaneously, and the Native Cultures were doomed

  17. 68

    George Wells

    @Skookum #67:
    It might be beneficial to remember that while each fossil unearthed STATISTICALLY represents many thousands of original individuals, unfortunately it doesn’t represent them accurately. An individual fossil represents only the phenotype of one, long-dead member of a much larger population, and that particular phenotype may well have been particularly UNrepresentative of the population it is statistically a part of. The assumption that you criticize the Leakeys for having made is a common error. Each fossil is NOT the quintessential “missing link” that its finder hopes it to be. And while each subsequently found fossil DOES fill in a piece of a much larger puzzle, we never know quite where to place each puzzle piece on the board. What that leaves us with is an ever-pressing need for MORE pieces of the puzzle. What it does NOT leave us with is an excuse to abandon science.

    “Carbon dating often led to conflicting results, probably from contamination.”
    Pottery chards are porous pieces of mineral composition with virtually no carbon original to the piece. (Even low-fired ceramic production burns off all carbon as CO2.) Any entrained carbon would be a hitch-hiker, associating with the chard sometime between the time of potting and the present, leading to the contamination errors you mention. Some of the original carbon that was part of living tissue becomes sequestered in the mineral matrix that replaces much of a fossil bone’s calcium components, and this sequestered carbon is analyzed for C14 decay. To avoid contamination issues, the analyzed sample is taken from WITHIN the fossil, where uncontaminated sequestration of the original material is assured. Carbon-dating is VERY effective and accurate for dating fossilized plant and animal tissues up to 70,000 years old. Pottery chards are best dated by carbon-dating fossilized bone or wood found in the same context (strata), but this technique introduces an opportunity for error not found in the first case.

    Some of the questions you are asking science to answer are questions that only your faith can address. If you discount all of science because you notice that science sometimes makes mistakes, you will be throwing out the baby with the bath water, and you will be left with nothing but religion and no way to ever prove anything. I wouldn’t be so quick to do that.

  18. 69

    George Wells

    @Ditto #62:

    I read your copied material with interest, much as I have read many, MANY other novel theories advanced to explain what we don’t already know about the origin of the universe. These theories come and go faster than Arby’s shake flavor-of-the-month. They are frequently the product of someone’s Master’s or Doctoral Thesis, a collaboration between an eager theoretical physics, astronomy, astrophysics or mathematics grad student and his faculty advisor, and the ones plausible enough to get published are usually the ones that earned the desired degree.

    That said, they are a-dime-a-dozen. Just to make sure of exactly what you’re looking at, take note of the countries of origin: Egypt. Really? Are we dealing with a hot-bed of astrophysical research there? Is theoretical or cosmological mathematics Egypt’s new forte? How about mystical India?

    I would also note that in so many other similar “theories,” the same use is made of a “cosmological constant term” that is used to correct the errors that otherwise kill the equations being considered. Another term for a “cosmological constant” is a “fudge factor.”

    Once again, I’d wait for Oxford, Cambridge, MIT or Cal Tech to climb on board before getting too excited about this odd idea coming from the fringe. Oh, it COULD have something to it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  19. 70


    @George Wells:

    You certainly seem close-minded to theories that go against so called “settled science”. Yet, as I recall you were quick to accept on faith the theoretical concept that matter entering a black hole’s gravitational event horizon (point of no escape.) might somehow be ejected on a hypothetical “other side” of a coexistent theoretical time reversed “white hole”, (rather than the more likely possibility of simply adding to the mass of the dead star). Had a “white hole” ever have been discovered exhibiting such a state of matter emission, there might be a point of argument to support such theory (heavily reliant as it is on there being in existence reversed gravitational force, a force which has not been discovered either to exist).

    It is the mark of an aloof and unscientific mind to off-highhandedly dismiss contradictory theories due to the nation of origin of the scientists, while at the same time accepting consensus as irrefutable proof.

  20. 71


    @George Wells: Actually the charred animal bone and human remains were carbon dated with surprising and varying results on similar strata.

    You assume a lot when you accuse me of abandoning science; yet, you choose to ignore my questions on blood typing for early man and the cross species DNA results found in Northern European and Asian bloodstocks. These are legitimate questions of evolution that everyone avoids, even blood typing professionals or perhaps they are reluctant to use the generic explanations, that satisfy the general public. Since you seem to have a firm grasp of Evolution Theory, I thought you could at least explain these minor discrepancies to a semi-literate cowboy with a superficial layman’s comprehension of evolution theory and blood typing.

  21. 72


    @George Wells: Your first paragraph explains my supposition in greater detail, but I am not the one who used the fossil remains to explain the ascent of man through evolution. I am the one who questioned evolutionary theory because of the data submitted, not because of faith. Yet, because of university educations, millions of educated people are willing to use these same specimens as irrefutable proof of the evolution of man over a span of 2.5 million years. Some of them remember the different species of man and can even tell you where the remains were found, but their science or knowledge of the subject is flawed. However their faith in the theory of evolution is fervent and they are unwilling to concede anything, even doubt.

  22. 73

    George Wells

    @Ditto #70:

    Where have I dismissed ANYTHING?
    I have acknowledged that GOD may well have created the universe.
    I have acknowledged many errors in the interpretation of the fossil record.
    I only pointed out that there is no evidence to which the “scientific method” may be applied to confirm OR refute the possibility that GOD started the universe or that HE controls evolution.
    That’s a far cry from a dismissal.

    The white hole speculation was just that – conjecture. It wasn’t science, there were no FACTS, there were only observations concerning objects in the far reaches of the universe that we HAVEN’T examined closely for obvious reasons and about which our knowledge is tentative and theoretical. Until a theory is DISPROVED, it remains a possibility.

    “It is the mark of an aloof and unscientific mind to off-highhandedly dismiss contradictory theories due to the nation of origin of the scientists, while at the same time accepting consensus as irrefutable proof”

    Show me ONE instance where I have “accepted consensus as irrefutable proof”!
    Shame on you!
    I spent my entire career as a research analytical chemist, developing patents for my company and successfully making good use of my “scientific mind.” Skepticism is a necessary component of the scientific method, much needed to avoid jumping to unfounded conclusions in the absence of proof. It is the mark of a fool to dishonestly characterize a skeptical mind as an aloof or dogmatic one, and it is folly to embrace an unproved theory simply because it agrees with your religious beliefs.

  23. 74

    George Wells

    @Skookum #71:
    “yet, you choose to ignore my questions on blood typing for early man and the cross species DNA results found in Northern European and Asian bloodstocks. These are legitimate questions of evolution that everyone avoids, even blood typing professionals or perhaps they are reluctant to use the generic explanations, that satisfy the general public.”

    My apologies, my friend. I have never heard of this issue that you raise, and your brief synopsis of it was so confusing to my inexperienced mind that I had no idea what the problem was. If you would be so good as to provide a link to a discussion of this subject by individuals well versed in the proper use of the relevant nomenclature, I would be happy to consider the evidence and will gladly comment on it.

    Again, I’m sorry to have ignored this item of interest to you, as the better course would have been to ask you for clarification.
    I look forward to your reply.

  24. 75

    George Wells

    @Skookum #72:
    “I am the one who questioned evolutionary theory because of the data submitted, not because of faith.”

    That is as it should be. It’s a theory, and theories deserve critical and skeptical “review” of the most rigorous sort. Change “review” to “attack,” “efforts to disprove,” etc. I’m not arguing that point.

    The history of Mankind (not just the history of science) is littered with “truths” that were eventually disproved with finality. That alone should make anyone wary of accepting anything they are told, unless they personally know it to be true. Now, life doesn’t give us enough time to self-prove everything, and so we each have to decide for ourselves which authority or authorities we will occasionally defer to, and under what circumstances such concessions will be made. There are many choices, and it’s a free society.
    I find it interesting that we make so much of a fuss over the concepts of “thought control” and “censorship,” all the while acknowledging the dangerous power of ideas that has spawned those concepts. Why else do we make young children recite the Pledge to the Flag or the Lord’s Prayer if not to brain-wash them?
    Just wondering…

  25. 76

    George Wells


    What? Did you decide that science wasn’t what you THOUGHT it was?
    I didn’t give you any ideas that you weren’t already tired of?
    I’ve been accused of being a “drone of the collective” and a “liberal troll,” all the while NOT following the tiresome mantra of the Left any more than I follow the same coming from the right. The Quasar idea was an original thought, my never having dug deep enough to find astrophysicist Hjellming’s musings on the same idea. On the other hand, the “something-from-nothing” postulations aren’t mine, though I hoped that you would be interested enough to look into them instead of letting a good source of something other than the usual drivel die on the vine. Unrequited conversation sucks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *