For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.
If you’ve been following this blog’s series on ‘the false foundations of modern science’ you’ll hopefully already have picked up an inkling of how all this ‘false science’ gets established in the world.
A researcher comes up with a theory or proposal that garners a lot of attention, and / or a lot of funding, and / or a lot of ‘political clout’ (for whatever vested interest reasons) - and then they build a big career, and a big reputation, and a big bank balance defending that ‘theory’ for all it’s worth.
Depending on who else thinks their theory is a good idea (regardless of whether the real facts or true science backs it up) any opponent to this theory will then usually have their career torpedoed, their reputations publicly trashed, and their credibility tarnished at every turn.
It takes a very strong person indeed to stand up to people who are ‘religious’ about their scientific beliefs, and who will stoop to any tactic to ensure that their version of events, and their interpretation of data is the only one the public ever gets to hear about.
We’ve seen this tactic play out with macro-evolution, with geology, with the infamous ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for mental illness, and now, we’re going to take a look at one of the biggest ‘false science’ scams of modern times: climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
The first thing to note is that climate change is real, and is happening all the time. There is no doubt that some parts of the planet are hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier etc than they were a few decades, or a few centuries ago.
No-one is really arguing about that.
But where the rub comes is that while the pseudo-scientific community - with Al Gore and ex-president Obama at its head - is loudly proclaiming that PEOPLE are to blame for the changing climate, and especially FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PEOPLE, the actual science paints a very different picture.
Before we continue, remember that so much of what we think is ‘proven’ in so many fields of science actually really isn’t. Also remember that vested interests manipulate us via the media into believing things that really aren’t true, for their own agendas and aims.
Between 2010 and 2013, the US government alone paid climate change researchers $64 billion. A lot of scientists, a lot of politicians, and a lot of companies have their fingers in that very big pie. Climate change is big business and great for your scientific career, if you happen to be ‘sounding the alarm’ on climate change.
But what’s really going on, what’s really causing climate change, and how did we get to this place where so many people are panicking over Co2 emissions? Read on.
CARL SAGAN AND THE VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY
Carl Sagan was a professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, and in 1974 he renewed official science’s attack on Immanual Velikovsky, and his ‘ridiculous’ theories that Noah’s flood actually happened, the bible’s account was literally true, and that the world had been shaken to its core a number of times in the last 8,000 years, due to ‘action at a distance’ events with enormous planet-sized comets.
So many of Velikovsky’s theories have subsequently been validated by science over the last 70 years since he wrote them, including his claim that Venus would be found to have a scorchingly hot temperature, due to it being a very new addition to the solar system.
(Velikovsky suggested that Venus only became a planet in our solar system within the last 3,500 years or so. Before that Venus had been the ‘comet’ responsible for wreaking utter havoc on the earth and the moon - as described in innumerable ancient sources and as evidenced by the geological record - and which had also stripped planet Mars of its atmosphere and water on one of its fly-bys.)
Of course, the suggestion that such cataclysmic things might have occurred within the modern age, or that all the theories of the world being many billions of years and uniformly ‘stable’ were anathema to the open minds of modern scientists like Sagan, so they used any tool they could to discredit Velikovsky and his ‘theories’.
The first space probe, Venera 7, successfully landed on Venus on December 15, 1970. It remained in contact with Earth for 23 minutes, relaying surface temperatures of 455 °C to 475 °C (855 °F to 885 °F). Before this information was discovered, Sagan and other NASA scientists were confidently predicting that Venus would have an ambient temperature akin to earth’s.
When the NASA probe reported back the shocking information that Venus was scorchingly hot - just as Velikovsky had predicted - Sagan et al went into damage limitation mode, and came up with the VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS theory.
Scientist Charles Ginenthal wrote a whole book deconstructing this hugely deceitful and fraudulent ‘theory’, but here’s the crux of the matter (as explained by a reviewer):
“Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings.
And NASA is still doing its best to try to link Venus with faulty climate change theories for earth, as this story from last year shows:
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable
Remember, false assumptions and beliefs in one area of science inevitably give rise to other false assumptions and beliefs, as this little snippet clearly demonstrates. The same ‘science’ that is telling us Venus is billions of years old is telling us that humans are responsible for disastrous climate change.
STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN
Even though Sagan’s greenhouse gas theory has subsequently been discredited for Venus, it sadly put down very deep roots in the nascent field of ‘climate change science’, as we shall see.
One of the main people pushing the issue of climate change was the so-called ‘father of climate change’ James Hansen. He bought Sagan’s false theory of greenhouse gases hook, line and sinker.
The following quote is from Hansen’s book called“Storms of My Grandchildren” end of chapter 10, The Venus Syndrome:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
How’s that for unparalleled scientific rigor? Hansen appears to have proven that the only reason Venus is a hot, barren hell-hole of a planet it because human beings were burning tar on it at some undefined time in the past…
This is the same person who wrote this in 1981:
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
And here’s what he told Congress in 1988:
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere.
Unperturbed by the lack of evidence to support his theories, Hansen has continued to churn out alarming soundbytes and scary quotes for the last 40 years’ or so, like:
“Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise.
Sadly, the internet is chock-full of quotes from Hansen along these same lines, but I picked these four out to show a few recurring themes:
1) Hansen’s language makes clear that anyone burning fossil fuels is akin to a Nazi, which seems to be an exaggerated comparison, even if you ARE a big believer in human-induced climate change.
2) This is much more about emotive propaganda than hard science.
3) There’s loads of false suggestions contained in these few sparse quotes.
Uh, really? Burning coal is giving my kid asthma? Where’s the studies that show that’s true? Uh, really? Natural disasters are being caused by burning fossil fuels? Where’s the scientific evidence for that big statement? Uh, are you sure that Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that this was known since the 1800s?
The ‘proof’ for that last statement, as referenced by the NASA website on climate change, amounts to this:
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Over on the website climatechange.org, a headline from May 2013 screams:
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
It seems to be completely lost on the author of this article - and the many climate change scientists he quotes (more on that in a moment) that if this is true, then human beings burning fossil fuels is clearly not the cause of climate change on planet earth…
But these are the types of obvious arguments that false science can never seem to wrap its head around. So instead, you get told pseudo-scientific guff like:
“While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
Once again, we see how the false beliefs in one field of science sow more false beliefs in other areas.
Climate change scientists make huge assumptions that ‘the rate of change taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past.’ But this simply isn’t true! Every time they drill more ice cores, they are presented with the EVIDENCE that the climate has changed rapidly in the very recent past. For example, this comes from the British Antartic Survey website:
Abrupt climate changes
Again, note all the usual assumptions about these changes ‘only’ happening in the ancient past, because modern science teaches that the world has been stable for millions of years (despite all the evidence they keep turning up that this patently untrue…) There’s no evidence for these statements, they are just beliefs.
And while we’re on the subject of ice-cores, this (from the NASA climate change website) explains how they date those things, again using the same assumptions that weather patterns have always been the same for millions of years:
“How old is the oldest ice core—and how do we know it’s that old?
Again, even a cursory reading of this paragraph tells you that the ‘science’ being used to date these ice cores is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions about the world always working the same way - which again flys in the face of the actual evidence on the ground.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR GLOBAL COOLING?
The last thing to share with you in this first post on climate change is that back in the 1970s, scientists started ‘alarming’ the world that the next Ice Age was imminent. Back in 1975:
Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it." On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".
In the 1980s, with James Hansen at the helm, the alarm about ‘global cooling’ gave way to an even more impassioned alarm about ‘global warming’. So what’s really going on? This comes from the Friends of Science website:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
In other words, the planet’s temperature is oscillating all the time, and there is no ‘unusual’ warming going on right now.
(I’m kind of ruining my own production here, but go check out the Friends of Science webpage called ClimateChange 101, as it presents a lot of useful information in a very easy-to-digest way: http://www.climatechange101.ca/)
THE MAIN POINTS SO FAR:
The scientific establishment is so wedded to the false idea the world is billions of years’ old, and that the earth’s climate has been ‘stable’ for millennia (even though both ideas are patently false), that they have consistently discredited any evidence that suggests that:
But I know, ex-President Obama said this about climate change:
“Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”
And no-one could accuse him of manipulating the public with mass-produced, deceitful soundbytes that didn’t stand up to any real scrutiny…..
So in the next post, we’ll take a look at the nuts and bolts of the ‘false science’ - and outright lies - that’s propping up the befuddled theory of climate change.
Again, no-one is claiming that climate change isn’t actually happening - that’s a straw man.
What is being very seriously debated is:
You can learn a lot from the Smithsonian Institute.
One of the main things you can learn, especially if you visit their ‘human evolution’ pages is that they won’t let a complete lack of evidence or fraudulent fossils deter them from telling you the story they want you to hear about how humans ‘evolved’ (sic) down the course of millions of years (sic).
Here’s a little about what it tells us about ‘homo erectus’:
Here’s what it DOESN’T tell you about ‘homo erectus’:
Eugene Dubois was a student of Earnst Haeckel, who infamously forged a whole bunch of ‘embryo’ diagrams in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that embryos went through all the stages of evolution in the womb. Despite Haeckel’s forgeries being uncovered many decades ago, you’ll still find a whole bunch of people who point to Haeckel’s diagrams as ‘proof’ of macro evolution.
So Dubois was the student of an academic fraudster who was so ‘religious’ about his belief in evolution, he was willing to lie, cheat and falsify evidence to get the public to believe in it, too. And it seems as though Dubois was similarly inclined:
After years of [Dubois’] excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).
Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that: “Curiously, Dubois waited until the 1920s to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area where his Pithecanthropus material had been discovered.”
So there are a bunch of very well-known questions and doubts hanging over Dubois’ ‘Java Man’ from Indonesia, and there are other ‘irregularities’ associated with ‘Peking Man’, too.
"Strangely, every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing to work on but casts …."
I.E. there were strong suspicions right from the beginning that these ‘fossils’ didn’t really stand up to any real scrutiny. But the Smithsonian Institute in 2017 isn’t breathing a word about these doubts to the poor, clueless reader.
Here’s another one of the Smithsonian’s line of apparent ‘ancestors’, discovered in 2003:
Again, a careful reading of what the Smithsonian Institute is telling readers is that there’s no evidence this ‘homo floresiensis’ is anything other than a ‘homo sapiens’ with a disease or growth disorder that lived on an isolated island where the elephants were also pygmy-sized.
Let’s try another apparent ‘ancestor’, to see if the evidence gets any more persuasive:
So, you’ll note that they have absolutely no hard evidence that ‘homo habilis’ made any of the stone tools they found, or even that it’s a new ‘species’ of man, but these scientists still declared this fossil to be an early human ancestor, as opposed to just another extinct species of ape.
Why exactly they decided that, we aren’t told.
The more I’m reading through all this paleontological and anthropological pseudo-science, the more I’m realizing how scientists hide so much of their unproven ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ behind some very big words, to make it much harder for the public to understand what’s really going on.
Here’s a few paleontological terms that will make it easier for the lay man (i.e. you and me…) to understand what we’re really reading:
Australopithecines: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially extinct APES, not humans.
Homo Erectus: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially HUMAN, not apes.
Pongid: Simply refers to apes / monkeys.
WHY ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SO KEEN TO ‘INVENT’ MISSING LINKS AND TWIST FOSSIL EVIDENCE AROUND IN SUCH A DISTORTED WAY?
After the ‘Piltdown Man’ fossil was revealed as a deliberate fraud, paleontologists had no ‘missing links’ to link humans to apes. As this was a key requirement for the theory of macro evolution, the search was on to find the ‘inevitable’ missing links. That’s what’s behind all these ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ about what these fossil researchers are pulling out of the ground.
‘Homo habilis’ is NOT an ‘early’ human, it’s an extinct monkey.
Another one of our ‘ancestors’ that was lauded as a missing link and highly publicized was ‘Lucy’ - who ended up being an extinct form of orangutan, and not an ‘early genus of human’, as all the scientists claimed.
Before we come on to more of a discussion as to what, exactly, is going on with these fossils, I want to tell you about ‘Ida’, as she came to be known, as it’s so instructive as to how scientists very publicly rush to claim ‘evidence’ for their false theories, and in so doing completely mis-lead the public about what’s really going on.
On May 19, 2009, the world woke up to the following stunning headlines (this is excerpted from an online article in The Guardian):
Tuesday 19 May 2009 15.30 BST
IDA, THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD...
So, are we all clear what got discovered here? THE missing link between humans and animals. And there’s a whole bunch of big names jumping up and down telling you that, and doing documentaries about ‘Ida’ and underlying very clearly that Darwin’s theory of evolution is right - coincidentally just in time for Darwin’s 200th birthday!
The ‘Ida’ documentary was a joint venture between the BBC and the History Channel, and drew many millions of viewers. Even Google got in on the PR campaign to introduce ‘Ida’ to the world, with a specially-designed link on its front page to celebrate the find, and National Geographic hailed ‘Ida’ as the ‘critical missing link species’.
Colin Tudge even wrote a popular book about Ida, called The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little Brown & Co, 2009), which is interesting because in that book even Tudge conceded that:
The primate fossil record is so sparse that only around fifty significant specimens exist from the past 5 million years. The most famous is Lucy, the 3.2 million year old australopithecine discovered by Donald Johanson in November 1974. Lucy revolutionized science by providing the first evidence of a primate that walked upright--a crucial link in our own evolution that distinguishes us from all other primates. But even Lucy, considered a remarkable specimen, was only 40 percent complete.
As you’ll know from what you just read above, the 60% of Lucy that was missing was all the parts that differentiate a human being from a monkey. Lucy was subsequently declared to be an extinct form of Orangutan - a long time ago! - yet she’s still hitting the headlines in Tudge’s book from 2009 as the other ‘most famous’ missing link before Ida showed up.
“Everyone agrees that from the neck up, "Lucy" was gorilla-like. Her brain size was about one-fourth the size of a human brain; her jaw was "U"-shaped, typical of gorillas; her teeth were large, far larger than those in humans.
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.”
In a further twist on the 'Lucy' story, a recent re-analysis of the bones found that a baboon bone had somehow got snuck into the mix too... But I digress.
So the PR campaign to institute ‘Ida’ as a missing link was a great success! But there was just one problem with it: It was all a big lie.
Now, let’s fast forward a few months to March, 2010, when scientists from the University of Texas released the following conclusions about Ida:
"Recently Analyzed Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say"
Twelve of the sixteen primate traits that the scientists were able to identify classified Ida with monkeys. It turned out, Ida was a lemur.
Of course, no-one bothered to set the public straight about that. National Geographic didn’t run a new article apologizing for misreading its readers, and the BBC and the History Channel didn’t see fit to run a new documentary exploring fraudulent discoveries of ‘missing links’. The public - millions of them - was left with the very clear impression that yet another ‘missing link’ to prove Darwin’s theory of evolution had been found.
So, what’s the real explanation for what’s going on with all these bones and fossils that show a slightly different skull or skeleton from what science considers to be a ‘modern’ human being?
In 1994, scientist Bill Mehlert wrote:
“The pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid (ape).
Again, to put this into plain English, all the different types of skeletons that are called ‘erectus’, ‘archaic’ and ‘neanderthal’ are actually all just modern man, or homo sapiens etc.
And the ‘human ancestors’ (sic) that are called austalopithecines and habilines (after the homo habilis you read about above) - are all just extinct apes. This view is held by a number of scientists, including DT Gish (Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record), M Lubenow (Bones of Contention), GJ Beasley, Cherfas and Gribbin (Descent of man or ascent of ape? New Scientist 91)
Again, to quote Mehlert:
“[T]here are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.”
I.e., home erectus was just a type of modern aboriginal man.
This point was proved, ironically enough, by Professor Reiner Protsch, a ‘carbon dating expert’ who managed to fraudulently convince the whole anthropological world that he’d found the ‘missing links’ between human and ‘neanderthals’ by passing off modern skulls as ancient fossils:
“[A] university inquiry was told that a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.
But it’s a fair question to ask how these people came to have such big jaws and flat, wide foreheads. And the answer is actually very simple. Let’s go back to Mehlert:
“…the so-called “primitive” erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.”
When people eat uncooked, or partially-cooked food in childhood (which could happen a lot in times of food shortage, war or severe economic distress), this strengthens and enlarges the jaw mechanism, which in turn leads to the forehead becoming ‘flatter’, which in turn makes the brow ridges stick out, forces the zygomatic arch out, and leads to flattened cheek bones and squarer faces.
If a person was severely lacking in Vitamin D, that could also lead to a great many of the characteristics associated with ‘neanderthals’. Even today, a lack of Vitamin D is behind such bone mis-shaping diseases as rickets - and even today, there are a whole bunch of people walking around the modern world with so-called ‘homo erectus’ or ‘neanderthal’ features, i.e. massive brow ridges, flattened foreheads, a poorly defined chin, and a large lower jaw.
(In fact, an article in Nature magazine in 1971, bore the headline: “Neanderthals had rickets”.)
So to sum things up, ‘neanderthal man’ is just a variant of you and me. And increasing numbers of scientists who still hold by evolution think this, too:
One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:
The last thing I want to tell you about is this article on Botox from the Daily Mail:
“Even as a young girl, Louisa Smith had never been happy with the rather masculine shape of her face and felt self-conscious of her square jaw by the time she reached her teens.”
To cut a long story short, Louisa suffered from bruxism throughout her childhood, i.e. she ground her teeth. When she went to get a botox treatment to ‘soften’ her jaw, within six weeks she’d lost that angular-jawed look we associate with Neanderthals, and her face had instantly slimmed down to ‘normal’ and modern looking.
You can see the before and after pictures for yourself HERE, and also below:
But the point is this:
You can learn a lot at the Smithsonian Institute, not least, how much misinformation, distorted information and outright lies they - and other 'scientific' institutions like National Geographic and the Nature Channel - are feeding the public dressed up as unvarnished ‘truth’ and scientifically-proven ‘facts’ about evolution.
In 1949, one Professor M Ewing from Columbia University set out with a team of researchers to go and take a closer look at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Amongst other things, the team used sound echo equipment to measure the depth of the sediment on the ocean floor - something they expected to be many thousands of feet thick.
Ocean sediment is typically made up of all the millions and billions of microscopic creatures that live and then die in the oceans - called ‘foraminifera’ - amongst other things. The skeletons of these microscopic creatures very slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, and become sediment.
According to Professor Ewing, other things that add to the sediment on the ocean floor are volcanic dust, wind-blown soil and “the ashes of burned-out meteorites and cosmic dust from outer space sifting constantly down upon the earth.”
If the world was really billions of years old, as claimed, there should be miles of sediment at the bottom of the sea. But that’s not what Professor Ewing and his researchers found when they started measuring it. Writing in: “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ride” in National Geographic in 1949, Professor Ewing said:
“Surprisingly, we have found that in the great flat basins on either side of the Ridge, this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick…. Always it had been thought the sediment must be extremely thick, since it has been accumulating for countless ages (sic).
The lost continent of Atlantis, anyone?
Fast forward to July 2016, and researcher Isabel Yeo from GEOMAR's Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel took a team of researchers to the North Kolbeinsey Atlantic Ocean Ridge, around 500km off the north coast of Iceland, to start collecting detailed images of the ‘hundreds’ of deep water volcanoes - many of which are still live - scattered on the ocean floor there.
Yeo came up with a new method of photographing and dating the lava flows from these volcanoes, which are found between 7--2,000 metres below the surface of the ocean using ‘hydro-acoustic properties’.
The basic idea is that this technology hits the lava flows with sonar, and then analyses how much sound the lava flow reflects back. Yeo commented that her super-sharp images: “combined with the spatial extents of the flows, mean we can work out how much lava erupted where and when.”
As with all of these dating techniques, it relies heavily on a number of unproven assumptions, that Yeo identified in her paper presenting the findings:
“These calculations are heavily dependent on a number of assumptions including assuming that the sediment drape and the surface structure of the lava flow fields are homogeneous, that sedimentation rate is constant through time and that the effects of acoustic refraction within the sediment are negligible. Sediment thickness may be overestimated if the sediments are sandier than assumed.”
But the basic findings were still shocking enough:
Yeo found that these massive volcanic eruptions on the sea floor had all occurred within the last 4,000 years, and that the biggest eruptions and lava flows occurred 3,200 years ago.
But the sea held more secrets, too.
In 1947, a Swedish deep-sea expedition headed by H Pettersson, director of the Oceanographic Institute of Goteborg also found “evidence of great catastrophes that have altered the face of the earth.”
What did the Swedes find, to convince them of this? Here’s a small part of what they reported finding in Scientific American, in 1950:
“Nickel is a very rare element in most terrestrial rocks and continental sediments, and it is almost absent from the ocean waters. On the other hand, it’s one of the main components of meteorites.”
I.e. whenever a lot of nickel shows up, that’s usually a clear sign that a particular area or region got bombarded by a very heavy shower of meteorites.
All over the world, there is evidence that around 3,500 years ago, the ocean level suddenly and significantly dropped leading to the shorelines ‘emerging’ well over 20ft higher. Professor Reginald Daly, writing in Our Mobile Earth, said:
“Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of Eastern Australia, along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In all these and other published cases, the emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude.”
Daly thought that this came about due to a “recent worldwide sinking of ocean level”. Daly put the date for this huge upheaval at between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. This dating was subsequently confirmed by another researcher, PN Kuenen of Leyden University, who wrote in Marine Geology:
“The time of the movement was estimated by Daly to be probably some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Detailed field work in the Netherlands and in Eastern England has shown a recent eustatic depression of the same order of magnitude as deduced by Daly. Here the time can be fixed as roughly 3,000 - 3,500 years ago.”
I.e. exactly the time the Israelites left Egypt.
We’re currently in the Jewish year 5778. The Exodus from Egypt occurred in 2446.
5778-2446 = 3332 years’ ago, at the date of writing.
And you’ll recall that our Sages taught that when the sea ‘split’ in Egypt, the seas all over the world also ‘split’ at exactly the same time, which is how the nations of the world knew of the miracles that were being done for the Jewish people.
Wherever you turn, there is more and more evidence that the land became sea, and that sea became land across huge swathes of the planet, around 3,500 years ago - and that it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called ‘global warming’.
Here’s what Velikovsky has to say:
“Human artifacts and bones of land animals were dredged from the bottom of the North Sea; and along the shores of Scotland and England, as well as on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the sea, stumps of trees with their roots still in the ground were found. Forty five miles from the coast, from a depth of thirty six metres. Norfolk fishermen drew up a spearhead carved from the antler of a deer, embedded in a block of peat.”
Which dated whatever it was that submerged huge areas of Northern Europe under water to 1500 BCE - i.e., 3,500 years ago, when the Jews were leaving Egypt.
There is a huge list of locations in England and Wales which are home to recently submerged forests, which still have large trees somehow rooted to the bottom of the ocean floor, showing they were submerged only recently. These were found at:
In February 2014, a huge storm shifted a ton of sand shale off the Cornish and Welsh coasts revealing more of these ‘submerged forests’. One of the biggest forests is at Mount Bay, Cornwall, which contains a number of underwater oak, beech and pine trees, measuring between 3 and 5 metres tall.
Modern geologists grabbed the opportunity to use carbon 14 dating on the trunks, to date them - and again stunned the scientific community by coming up with a time period of between 4000 - 6000 years.
(You’ll recall from THIS article that carbon 14 dating is usually fairly accurate within the last 3,500 years or so).
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Frank Howie, Cornwall Wildlife Trustee and chair of the county's Geoconservation Group, said:
"The storms have revealed two to five metre trunks of pine and oak as well as the remains of hazel thickets with well-preserved cob nuts and acorns washed out by streams running across the beach.
All of this shows that very recently, much of what is now underwater was previously inhabited dry land. And that this massive change to the earth’s contours didn’t occur billions, or even millions of years ago.
It all happened within the last 3,500 years, i.e. well within what’s known as ‘historical’ times, and at the time that the Jewish people left Egypt amidst the huge natural upheavals that came to be known as the 10 plagues, and then received the Torah on Mount Sinai amidst more huge 'natural' cataclysms.
So honestly, you could call this post the 500 billion big lies that evolutionists like to tell to back up their completely unscientific ‘theory’ of evolution, but let’s stick to seven for now, so I can get this written before I mutate (in another 4 billion years…) into something that can’t type.
BIG LIE NUMBER 1: MACRO EVOLUTION OCCURS OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS
This is the idea that 'given time', an amoeba could randomly turn into a monkey.
It would take trillions and trillions of years before an amoeba could 'randomly' turn into a monkey, or a fully-sentient human being - if it could even happen at all, because nearly all 'random' mutations aren't beneficial to the organism (think cancer) and cause the organism's death.
Pioneering molecular biologist Douglas Axe recently proved conclusively that the amount of time it would actually take for even one of Darwin’s ‘happy evolutionary coincidences’ to occur was a number so big, it’s practically impossible. The world simply isn’t old enough for all the millions of evolutionary tweaks that could turn an amoeba into anything remotely similar to a biped - or even something more modest, like an earthworm or fruit-fly.[i]
Again, to be clear: Axe’s research on folding proteins showed conclusively that 4.5 billion years is not long enough for an amoeba to turn into a fruit-fly, let alone a human being.
This point by itself is enough to show the ‘theory’ of evolution is complete baloney.
Read on for a connected big lie.
BIG LIE NUMBER 2: DNA ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
If you pick up a copy of: Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent life, written by Professor Stephen Meyer, PHD, he reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA.
“Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem.
BIG LIE NUMBER THREE: TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS SHOW EVOLUTION
In all my searching for these mythical ‘transitional fossils’ that ‘prove’ evolution, I’ve come up with precisely one example given: a reptile with turtle-type features.
And if you’re a keen observer, you’ll notice that this is backwards as according to evolutionists, sea creatures ‘evolved’ into land creatures and not the other way around.
Here’s what the REAL SCIENCE says about transitional fossils:
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they are never going to be filled.” - Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, summing up his 40 years of work on the subject in his book: Synthetische Artbildung:
BIG LIE NUMBER 4: VESTIGIAL TRAITS
This is the idea that a human appendix is a ‘throw back’ to when they were a monkey, or something.
Most of what arrogant western doctors consider to be ‘vestigial’ organs actually do have a use in the human body, just they haven’t yet figured it out, because they don’t know everything about human health.
Take a look at this article: Your Appendix is Useful After All as one example, but tonsils - another one of the ‘vestigial traits’ often quoted by evolutionists - are also part of the immune system and serve an important function in the body.
BIG LIE NUMBER 5: EARLY EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
This is the idea that humans used to be fish / monkeys etc because the embryo goes through a stage of looking like these creatures as it grows in the womb.
Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, was the first person who proposed this idea, and even did a very nice text book showing how it occurred.
There was just one problem: Haeckel blatantly faked many of his diagrams and falsified his ‘science’, something that he only admitted to many, many years later, after his theory had gained mainstream acceptance as being ‘scientifically proven’.
Yet more than 100 years later, Haeckel’s fraudulence is still being proffered by evolutionists as ‘scientific proof’ that their theory is correct.
BIG LIE NUMBER 6: MICRO EVOLUTION SOMEHOW ‘PROVES’ MACRO EVOLUTION
This is the idea that because a creature, a human, can be ‘conditioned’ by their environment and experiences to change their behavior of certain minor facets of their appearance within a lifetime, or over the very short time - what’s known as MICRO EVOLUTION - this somehow ‘proves’ that an amoeba can turn into a dog, and a monkey into a human, over the (impossibly….) long term.
Again, there is ZERO scientific evidence for this.
This is completely an article of faith, much more akin to a religious belief than a scientific proof of anything.
Please see BIG LIES 1 & 2, above, which show that ACCORDING TO REAL SCIENCE, the probability of the world being old enough to enable all these random beneficial changes to occur is ZERO.
BIG LIE NUMBER 7: COMPUTERS CAN SIMULATE EVOLUTION
That this is even something evolutionists claim as ‘proof’ of evolution is, well, sad.
It stands to reason that computer programmes are based on a whole bunch of ASSUMPTIONS made by the people creating them.
If those assumptions are false, whatever is being ‘simulated’ is also based on falsehood.
It’s a total non-argument for anyone who doesn’t have a religious belief in evolution.
TO SUM THIS UP:
There is so much more to say about this. All the stuff I’m putting up here about Carbon Dating 14 and other radiometric ‘dating’ methods being based on very faulty assumptions; and the ‘belief’ in Lyell’s principle of uniformity (which is another scientific ‘belief’ that doesn’t have a shred of scientific evidence backing it up) also clearly shows that the age of the world is not as the scientists would have you believe.
Why does the world need to be so old?
Because evolutionists need trillions of years to make their theories credible.
But the world is NOT trillions of years old, and even going by the assumption that it’s 4.5 billion (sic) years old, that’s still no-where near the amount of time it would be required for evolution to be a credible theory.
For anyone who isn’t religious about evolution, this should really be case closed.
We all know that the age of a strata of rock is determined by the fossils found within it. It follows that the older the rock is, the lower down it must be in the strata, because clearly, newer things accrue upon older things.
That’s what science, that’s what modern geology, teaches us and of course it sounds eminently sensible and correct.
It doesn’t actually reflect the reality of what’s really going on with the planet’s mountain ranges and rock formations. Writing in Our Mobile Earth, geologist Reginald Aldworth Daly revealed that:
“During the building of the Alps, gigantic slabs of rock, thousands of feet thick, hundreds of miles long, and tens of miles wide, were thrust up and then over, relatively to the rocks beneath…
If we go according to standard geological dating, the Alps in the Swiss canton of Glarus are a complete enigma. The lower strata have been dated to the Tertiary period (i.e. the age of mammals), which science dates as’ 65 million to 2.58 million years ago’; while their higher strata have been dated to the Permian period (preceding the age of reptiles), conventionally dated at between 299 to 251 million years ago; and the Jurassic period (the age of reptiles), dated conventionally at between 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago.
How on earth did rock stratas dated to 65 million years ago (at it’s oldest) come to be lying on top of rock dated 145 million years ago (at its oldest)? There are two options: either, the dating of rock according to the fossils they contain is just plain wrong, OR the mountains were actually physically shifted, intact, into a new location.
Let’s be clear that geologists - and anyone with any regard whatsoever for evolution - could never accept the first option, even if was clear as day. So, even in the scientific world, the fantastic idea that a number of older mountains were somehow physically moved from one location, and set atop more recent mountains is the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY’S own view of what most have occurred.
“The problem of mountain-making is a vexing one,” concurred Harvard Professor FK Mather, writing in Science in 1942. “Many [mountains] are composed of tangentially compressed and overthrust rocks that indicate scores of miles of circumferential shortening in the Earth’s crust. Radial shrinkage is woefully inadequate to cause the observed amount of horizontal compression…Geologists have not found a satisfactory escape from this dilemma.”
Before we continue with the fascinating subject of ‘moving mountains’, let’s just pause a moment to go back to the authentic Jewish sources on the subject of creating and moving mountains, where we find the following (You can find a much more detailed discussion of this over on Emunaroma, HERE.)
Midrash Mechilta, Yitro, haChodesh 4:
Lets’ be clear that we’re not just talking about one weird rock formation here; the examples of massive mountains moving tens and even hundreds of miles across land occur in a great many places in the world, including:
To name but a few. All the mountains weigh billions of tons. Are the geologists really expecting us to believe that some friction between tectonic plates or an earthquake - even a major earthquake - catapulted all these mountains a hundred miles away?
To quote Velikovsky: “No force acting from inside the earth, puffing inward or pushing outward, could have created these overthrusts. Only twisting could have produced them. It could hardly have occurred if the rotation and revolution of our planet had never been disturbed.”
Here's what plasma physicist James McCanney has to say about the subject:
 George McCready Price, writing in Common-sense Geology, 1922
“During the close passage of a large comet, the ‘gravitational wave’ is sufficient to move waves of land and rock at speeds in excess of a thousand miles per hour, across land.”
But the mountain mystery doesn’t end there.
Stone and bone artefacts used by ‘Stone Age Man’ - conventionally dated to the Pleistocene Era, or Ice Age - were found at the very top of the Alps, in a number of caverns. Why would Stone Age Man chose to make his home at the top of a freezing cold, 8,000 foot high mountain?
Amazing as it sounds, there is an abundance of evidence to show that the Alps and other mountains, arose and ended up in their present locations within the last few thousand years - well within the era of modern man.
“Mountain uplifts amounting to many thousands of feet have occurred within the Pleistocene epoch [Ice Age] itself,” explained Professor Flint, in Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch. And this happened in: “the Cordillerian mountain system in both North and South America, the Alps-Caucausus-Central Asian system, and many others.”
But really, we’re not even talking about tens of thousands of years here, we’re talking about a time when historical records were being kept by the human race, and writing had been developed, i.e. the last 5-6000 years.
Writing about the Asian mountains in Research in Asia II, explorer Bailey Willis said: “The great mountain chains challenge credulity by their extreme youth.”
In the next post, we’ll explore in more detail how the geological data and fossil evidence from mountain ranges across the world, including the towering peak of Mount Everest itself, poses one of the single biggest challenges to modern science and its ‘enlightened’ geologists’ view of how and when the world came about.
fire and brimstone hit hollywood the same time it hit sodom and gomorrah - the rancho la brea tar pits
While it’s sadly not unusual to hear that there are a bunch of fossilized, dangerous animals roaming around Hollywood, the creatures I’m going to introduce you to in this post mostly had four legs, and were found in a massive asphalt pit in the LA neighborhood of Rancho La Brea.
Before we get into this post - which I have a feeling is going to be one of my favorites on this subject - let me first introduce you to a definition of ‘bitumen’, as we’re going to be hearing a lot about this substance.
Here’s how it’s defined in American by Colliers:
Sometimes, bitumen is also called ‘tar’ (as in ‘tarmac’), and it’s thick, black, sticky stuff that’s actually high flammable.
Over 140 years’ ago, industrialists noticed that naturally-forming bitumen, or tar, or asphalt was oozing out of the ground at a place called Rancho La Brea, to the west of what was then the nascent city of Los Angeles, but which today butts right up against Hollywood and other LA suburbs.
Very quickly, they started mining this asphalt and shipping thousands of tons of it off to San Francisco, to pave the roads and waterproof the roofs. But a fortune in tarmac is not all they found in Rancho La Brea - they also discovered an absolutely enormous collection of dead animal remains, many of which were perfectly preserved in the black, sticky ooze.
Before we continue, let me give you the ‘official’ version of how all these animals - which included more than 700 sabre toothed tigers, wolves bisons, horses, mammoths, and also a number of birds, including peacocks - came to be in the Rancho La Brea tarpits, courtesy Wikipedia:
“This seepage has been happening for tens of thousands of years [sic]. From time to time, the asphalt would form a deposit thick enough to trap animals, and the surface would be covered with layers of water, dust, or leaves. Animals would wander in, become trapped, and eventually die. Predators would enter to eat the trapped animals and also become stuck.
Got that? Over ‘thousands’ of years, thousands of animals somehow wondered into these tar pits, get stuck, eventually die, and then hundreds of sabre tooth tigers and wolves would gather round to feast on the emaciated skeleton of whatever it was that got trapped, also then getting trapped and dying in the tar pits.
Oh yes, and radiocarbon dating tells us that all this happened around 38,000 years ago…
Now, are you ready for the real version of events?
THREE MASSIVE HOLES IN THEORY
The first hole in the theory is simply the sheer number of animal remains that were recovered from the pit. The skulls of wolves and sabre-toothed tigers were being recovered at the rate of 20 per square yard.
That’s an awful lot of carnivores fighting over a veal chop….
And that’s another problem with the theory, because overwhelmingly, the pit contained the remains of carnivores, and not herbivores.
But the most telling problem with this theory is that nearly all the skeletons recovered from Rancho La Brea - greatly to the surprise of the scientists working there - were smashed to pieces.
Writing in Fossils, Lull averred that the bones were ‘splendidly preserved’ in the hardened asphalt, but another chap called Price, writing in The New Geology, elaborated that they were
‘broken, mashed, contorted and mixed in a most heterogenous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trapping and burial of a few stragglers.”
So, if they didn’t ‘fall in’ to the bitumen, how did these animals come to be preserved in it - in their thousands - but with their bodies all smashed to pieces?
CRUDE OIL AND COMETS
When the volatile elements evaporate out of crude oil, that’s when you get asphalt, tar, and other bituminous substances.
Here’s the thing about bitumen: it can also fall from the sky.
In fact, the modern plasma scientist James McCanney writes at length about this subject, and explains that instead of petroleum deposits somehow forming from ‘millions’ of years’ of decomposing ancient forests (and to this day, no-one has managed to explain how so many of these ‘ancient forests’ apparently grew two miles under oceanic seabeds…) petroleum is often present as part of the chemical mix contained in the ‘tail’ of a comet.
In the Torah’s account of Sodom and Gomorrah, five cities are described as being wiped out by ‘sulfur and fire’ raining down, ‘out of heaven’. The Jewish commentator Sforno explains that this sulfur and fire weren’t natural, ‘earthly’ phenomena, but something extra-terrestrial. I.e. - they fell on the planet from outer space.
Sulfur is a key component of crude oil, the stuff that is refined to make the petroleum we use to power our cars, amongst other things. Here’s what the petroleum.co.uk website says about the sulfur content of crude oil:
The Torah tells us very clearly that sulfur-containing crude oil ‘rained’ out of the sky, as the plain where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are located were overturned, and then we’re told that the whole place appeared to be ‘smoking’ like a lime kiln - and all this happened at the time of Abraham the Patriarch, 2048 in the Hebrew calendar, or 3,729 years ago, at the time of writing.
The following comes from THIS article on Aish.com:
"Fire and brimstone" is a common expression used to describe the sermon of an overzealous preacher, but exactly what is brimstone? The Hebrew word for brimstone in the Biblical verse is gafrit and is usually understood to mean sulfur. The Targum Yonathan ben Uziel translates the word into Aramaic as kivraitah.
HOW THE HYDROCARBONS APPEARED ON THE SCENE
So, we know bitumen and sulfur were falling on the earth around the Dead Sea area just under 4,000 years’ ago, i.e. well within modern human history, as these archeological remains show.
But while the geologists working at the Dead Sea like to say that ‘flammable hydrocarbons’ got spewed up into the air by some sort of volcanic activity from below, what REALLY happened is that these ‘flammable hydrocarbons’ rained down from above, as part of a comet-induced catastrophe of epic proportions.
Let’s go back to Rancho La Brea, and Velikovsky’s explanation of what occurred:
“Could it be that at this particular spot, large herds of wild beasts, most carnivorous, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen? Similar finds in asphalt have been unearthed in two other places in California, at Carpinteria and McKittrick.”
One last thing to note is that human remains were also found in the La Brea tar pit, and that human was a ‘modern’ human, i.e. one of us. This stuff didn’t happen 38,000 years’ ago, as claimed, it happened less than 4,000 years’ ago.
A WORD ON HOLLYWOOD
When I started writing this post, I didn’t know that Rancho La Brea was located in the area of Hollywood (or rather, the other way around.)
In recent weeks, the comparisons between the behavior and morals of Hollywood and the behavior and morals of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah have been ever-more starker. So it’s very interesting to note that probably at the same time that Sodom and Gomorrah were being wiped off the map by a Divine visitation of ‘fire and brimstone’, the exact same thing appeared to be happening on the other side of the globe, at the future location of Hollywood.
It certainly makes a person think.
Ah, where to start with this subject? There are so many false ‘gods’ at this point - false narratives, falsified facts, false pictures of reality, false assumptions, faulty theories - that it could really be a life-long work just to start skimming off the first layer.
Still, every journey begins with the first step, and every story begins with the first word, so let’s begin with the false ‘god’ of Radiocarbon Dating.
If you believe the scientists, radiocarbon dating is an infallible method of measuring the age of artifacts, plant life, archaeological, human and animal remains, remnants of previous civilization and epochs on earth.
The basic idea behind radiocarbon dating is that it ‘works’ by measuring how much radioactive, or ‘radio’ carbon (14C) is released into the atmosphere over a certain period of time, as the carbon (12C) contained in the organic material being studied degrades and decomposes.
Radiocarbon dating was the brainchild of one Willard F. Libby, who published his treatise on radiocarbon dating in 1952 - and clearly stated the limitations of radiocarbon Dating right up front, as honest scientists were once wont to do.
Libby made the following observations about the accuracy of the method:
1) The atmosphere, biosphere and the hydrosphere (oceans) are the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth, with the seas by far and away containing the greatest concentration of radiocarbon.
If the quantity of water in the hydrosphere had changed substantially over the last 40,000 years (to use Libby’s own chronology), and / or the amount or carbon diluted in the oceans had substantially changed over this time period then radiocarbon dating wouldn’t return an accurate result.
(Park all these bits of info in the back of your brain as we go along, we’ll sum it all up neatly at the end.)
2) If the quantity and / or intensity of cosmic rays (another way of describing the particles of energy released by the sun and other celestial bodies, that are constantly bombarding the earth and which are part of our space weather) had substantially changed of this same period of time, then again radiocarbon dating wouldn’t return an accurate result.
Of course, at the time that Libby was doing his research, no-one in the hallowed halls of science doubted for a moment that the world was billions, even trillions of years old, and that the most exciting event that had happened to the planet in the last 50,000 years was just a very slow accretion of mud, well on the way to forming the next Mount Everest in a few more billion years… (sarcasm mine).
RADIOCARBON DATING RETURNS SOME INCREASINGLY ODD RESULTS
But the truth is that right from the start, radiocarbon dating started to return some very odd results.
For example, when wood grown in the 20th century was radiocarbon dated, it constantly appeared to be ‘older’ than wood from the 19th century. This was explained away, by some guy called Suess, who claimed that mass industrial burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil had changed the ratio between carbon and radiocarbon in the biosphere.
So henceforth, any human remains, animal parts or vegetation from the 20th century onwards would show up as being ‘older’, according to standard radiocarbon dating techniques, than stuff that actually preceded it by a century, or more, according to the calendar.
But never mind! Radiocarbon was still a peerlessly accurate way of dating everything else in the world !!! (sarcasm mine).
Which is when the next set of awkward data started to show up - in droves - that showed that radiocarbon dates were often between 500-700 years out, according to what was presumed to be the fixed historical date of the organic matter being tested.
This was particularly the case with Egyptian artifacts and the standard chronology assigned to ancient Egypt. This perplexing situation suggested that either, the standard chronology being used by Egyptologists was completely ‘off’, or the radiocarbon dating method was inaccurate.
Both views were actually true, but for different reasons.
Over the very short term, i.e. the last 4,000 years or so, radiocarbon dating is actually fairly accurate. Which is when science started to stumble over other awkward ‘data’ from radiocarbon experiments, including some which showed:
1) The last so-called ‘ice-age’ actually only occurred 3,500 years ago (Rubin and Suess, Geological Survey of the USA.)
2) Oil, which science claims takes millions of years to form, was radiocarbon dated by PV Smith of the Esso Research Lab in 1950 at a petroleum-bearing formation off the Gulf, who reported the ‘surprising’ discovery that it was formed in what’s called ‘Recent’ sediment, and therefore “must have been deposited in the last 9,200 (sic) years.”
(Again, set aside the Torah’s (accurate!) dating of the world for now. We’re just trying to show here that even according to the scientists’ own methods and gauge of time, so many of the scientific theories about life on our planet are just plain wrong.)
How could science explain this contradiction?
(The short answer is that they couldn’t, so they hastily shelved any of the radiocarbon data that didn’t ‘fit’ with their preconceived notions, across a whole bunch of disciplines.)
But if that wasn’t enough to think about, there was another huge problem with the radiocarbon dating method: The world has been through many, enormously dramatic natural upheavals and cataclysms since it was created, 5,777 years ago.
Authentic Jewish sources clearly spell this out (see THIS article) - as do many other 'ancient' traditions from other civilisations that modern science likes to dismiss as imaginative hogwash. Let’s very briefly sum up the main points that are covered more detail in that article, before we continue:
1) GOD CREATED 974 WORLDS BEFORE THIS ONE.
There were 974 generations and worlds created BEFORE our current one, in a process that lasted 2,000 years.
2) PREVIOUSLY, WHENEVER GOD DESTROYED ONE OF THESE 974 WORLDS, HE DID THAT BY OVERTURNING THE EARTH FROM THE T’HOM, I.E., FROM THE DEPTH OF THE WATER TABLE
God destroyed the previous 974 generations by flipping the earth’s crust over from the water table, completely destroying all life on the planet in an instant, and returning the world to TOHU AND BOHU, the Hebrew terms for chaos and ‘nothingness’.
3) GOD WILL CHANGE PLANET EARTH (OUR EXISTING ONE) 7 TIMES BEFORE MOSHIACH COMES
Those seven world are:
World 1: Adam and Eve (Year 1 in the Hebrew calendar, 5777 years ago)
Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 10:4) tells us:
Before Adam HaRishon sinned, the heavenly bodies had shorter and quicker orbits. Once man sinned, God caused the celestial orbs to travel in longer and slower circuits. Since then, the apparent circuit of the sun takes 12 months, the orbit of the moon, just under thirty days, etc
Rav Dovid Brown explains:
“In order for the solar year to have been less than 12 months, the earth would necessarily have been closer to the sun that it is now…If the earth was closer to the sun, the energy received from the sun would be greater…greater energy would result in a more powerful earth with capabilities inconceivable to us…The loss of this greater energy would result in a weaker earth and inferior beings inhabiting it.”
To put this another way, the intensity of cosmic rays bombarding planet earth DEFINITELY CHANGED, from current norms, when Adam and Eve were around.
World 2: From Adam to Enosh (Year 1 to Year 1140 in the Hebrew calendar, when Enosh died)
There was a partial flood of the world at this time, and also new mountain ranges sprang up overnight, undoubtedly due to ‘action at a distance’ effects from a passing planet-sized comet or celestial body. Again, this would dramatically affect the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere, rendering modern radiocarbon dating measurements obsolete.
World 3: Enosh to Noah’s flood (Year 1140 - Year 1656 in the Hebrew calendar)
Sforno (Parshat Noach 8:22) explains that:
Before the mabbul (Noah’s flood), the apparent circuit of the sun was directly around the equator.
The change in the attitude of the earth after the mabbul, so that the earth faces the sun at in inclination of the axis, is the cause of the varying seasons.
Before the mabbul, the climate was perpetually warm due to the sun striking the earth directly at the equator. That environment was extraordinarily robust compared to the modern world’s, and the earth had greater energy in all its members, mineral, vegetable, animal and human.
Again, clearly the cosmic rays bombarding the planet during this period weren’t occurring at the same relatively ‘fixed’ levels and intensity observed in more modern times.
World 4: The Mabbul (Noah’s flood) (Year 1656 in the Hebrew calendar, 4121 years ago)
Geologically: A foot of the earth’s topsoil is washed away, the rest of the earth is ‘mixed’ with boiling water that contains sulphur, polluting the earth’s ground and weakening it for the rest of the world’s natural lifespan.
Also, the earth received NO ENERGY from the celestial bodies throughout this time, also severely weakening its ability to produce food and support life.
World 5 - aging, physical degeneration and illness (Beginning around the year 2000 in the Hebrew calendar)
The Midrash (in Pesikta D’Rav Kahana, 22) tells us:
“When Yitzhak was born [in 2048], God increased the light emitted by the heavenly luminaries.”
The Gemara in Tractate Chullin, 91B, also explains how the sun changed its course twice, during the lifetime of Yaacov Avinu (who was born in 2108).
And then there were other enormous upheavals too, at the time of Moses and the Israelite exodus from ancient Egypt.
These astronomical changes brought about changes in the cosmic radiation bombarding planet Earth that had direct and immediate results on how the human body aged, degenerated and became ill, from that point on - all of which is born out by the latest findings in bio-physics.
And all these events also affected the fundamental basis for the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.
The last major changes to the physical nature of the world occurred in the time of King Hezekiah (who ruled for 29 years, around Year 3200 in the Hebrew calendar).
In this particular instance, the Midrash in Esther Rabba (3:1) explains that the world ‘gained’ five hours as a result of this astronomical shift, as measured by the ancient sun-clock of Ahaz.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, FUNDAMENTALLY, AT LEAST SIX TIMES IN THE LAST 5777 YEARS
Which is why radiocarbon dating simply doesn’t work, accurately, for anything going back more than around 4,100 years.
That’s also why radiocarbon dating happily assigns dates in the millions (and even billions…) of years to organic matter that is actually only maximally 8,000 years’ old (including the Torah’s assignment of 2000 years to the 974 worlds that preceded ours), because it’s working on the twin assumptions stated at the beginning that radiocarbon decays today at the same rate it always has - which is simply not true!
To quote Immanuel Velikovsky, who painstakingly pieced together so much of the scientific evidence that clearly shows that the events described above did occur, and have left innumerable traces even today:
“Bursts of cosmic rays and of electrical discharges on an interplanetary scale would make organic life surviving the catastrophes much richer in radiocarbon.” So any radiocarbon test would date these remains as being much younger than they actually are.
At the same time: “If invasion of the terrestrial atmosphere by ‘dead’ (non-radioactive) carbon from volcanic eruptions, meteoric dust, burning oil and coal and centuries-old forests predominated the picture, than the changed balance of radioactive and radio-inert carbon would make everything in the decades following the events appear much older.”
And on Noah’s flood specifically, Velikovsky writes that: “The Deluge increased the water basin, or hydrosphere, on earth… It’s quite possible that the volume of water was more than doubled on earth in this one cataclysm.”
STOPPING THE CRITICS IN THEIR TRACK
At this point in the story, the people who like to believe that the world is 14 billion years old (at least) and who have devoted their lives to the church and theology of evolution, and who hate even the suggestion that God might actually exist, and that the Torah is actually true, will start jumping up and down and playing their ‘scientific evidence’ card.
“Where’s the evidence for these statements?” they’ll demand. “Where’s the scientific proof for this heresy that radiocarbon dating is unreliable?!”
(As a side note, if you have two months spare I highly recommend reading through the whole of Immanuel Velikovsky’s collected works on this subject, but at the very least his epic ‘Earth in Upheaval’.)
I’m guessing you don’t have that much time to spare, so this is your lucky day: I’m going to start summarizing a lot of the evidence that shows, incontrovertibly, that the earth underwent a number of enormous upheavals within the last 5,000 years.
It’s scary reading, especially if you don’t believe in God, or don’t want to believe in God, which is usually the real problem.
But scientific evidence is scientific evidence, after all, and should be admitted into the records of discussion. So we’ll pick this back up in the next post, BH.
 (See the following sources: Chagiga 13b, Midrash Bereishit Rabba 3:7, Midrash Tehillim 34:1. Zohar Bereshit 25a).
 Midrash Tanchuma (Yitro 14) tells us: “When God sought to give the Torah He first offered it to all the nations other than Yisroel, but they refused it. He wanted to return the world to its dimension of water. When Yisroel accepted the Torah, the world was stabilised.”
 Pirkay d’Rabbi Eliezer (18) says:
God created seven worlds, or which his favorite is the last. Six of them to come and go, and one which is pure Shabbat.
 (More sources: Sanhedrin 108a, Bereishit Rabba (26:2), Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer (22), Bereishit Rabbat 34:11 and 36:1, Agudat Bereishit (10).)
 (Sources: Bereishit (9:3), Brachot 60a, Sanhedrin 100b and 108b, Rashi on Parshat Noach, (6:13))
So, for sure you’ve noticed how just about everyone you know, including yourself (if you’re honest…) is starting to exhibit some extreme mood swings and strong emotions, right? Here’s just a small selection of what I’ve heard and / or seen going on around me in the last little while:
One normally very calm, sweet and forgiving person told me they had such an uncharacteristic rage fit with a rude shopping assistant that they left the store shaking with anger, and it took them hours and hours to calm down again afterwards…
Another person snapped and violently attacked their spouse…
Another person got plunged into the biggest pit of despair and overwhelm about a problem that, yes is a problem, but not SUCH a big problem to merit such a enormous reaction…
Someone else got so overwhelmed by feelings of existential loneliness that they proposed marriage to someone they barely knew (thank God, the person turned them down…)
I could go on, but I’m sure you have your own examples of extreme, unusual reactions, decisions and behaviours going on all around you, and also inside you.
So what the heck is going on?!?
There’s a number of answers to this question, and the more spiritual answers you’ll find over on my other blog, at www.emunaroma.com. But on this blog, I try to concentrate on the more tangible explanations, or the visible processes that God is using to create a particular reaction or set of circumstances.
So what I think is going on, within that paradigm, is that the huge, unexplained body that’s currently in our solar system, and that goes by the various names of ‘Planet X’, ‘Nibiru’, ‘Kochav Yaacov’, or some other comet nomenclature is hugely affecting the bio-electrical structure of our planet - and the humans who live here.
(Again, I know this can sound pretty bizarre and ‘out there’ if you haven’t already been introduced to how the universe, world and human health actually really works, so if that’s you, you may want to take a look at these articles before you continue:)
We’re all kind of feeling ‘subliminally stressed’ at the moment, as our bio-electrical systems are being disrupted by the increased ions, protons, whatever they are in the atmosphere, that are part and parcel of what’s called the ‘solar wind’, or the energy that comes streaming in our direction from the sun.
If you take a look at THIS article, you’ll see how the universe really works, and is electrical in nature, and how when there’s a large comet / planet circling around our solar system, that causes the electrical activity between all the other bodies in the solar system, including the sun and planet earth, to go haywire.
So in a nutshell, the same phenomena that’s causing all these hurricanes in the US and the Caribbean (and even in the UK…), and unusually destructive wildfires all over the world, and massive earthquakes in Italy and Mexico, and floods in the Indian subcontinent, and exploding volcanoes in the ‘ring of fire’ in the Pacific, and also all the earthquake swarms being noted in the US and elsewhere - it’s also affecting us, you and me, on a micro level.
It’s making us feel increasingly ‘subliminally stressed’, which means we’re going into FIGHT-FLIGHT-FREEZE-FAWN mode without even realizing it, and that we have much less patience, generosity, kindness or self-awareness than usual.
We’re all walking around with hair-triggers, prepared to let anyone and everyone have it.
Why is God doing this?
Because He wants us to stop running away from our repressed negative emotions and bad character traits, and to actually acknowledge them and deal with them properly.
You, lady, have an anger issue! That’s why you keep sending out such atrocious emails to people, and commenting so acerbically on other people’s blogs.
You, sir, are sunk in despair and apathy! That’s why you drink so much and spend so much of your time glued to the telly, watching YouTube vids on your massive 50 inch screen.
You, madam, really hate and resent your parents, and you never, ever dealt with it! That’s why now, you find it so hard to enjoy your own family life, and you have a nervous breakdown every time another family get-together looms.
And so on and so forth.
But right now, God’s decided that we can’t run away from this stuff anymore. It’s time to look it squarely in the face, acknowledge the problems, and try to fix them.
And if we don’t do that, then at least in our lives, the ‘crazy days’ we’re experiencing are only going to come more furious, and more frequently.
I'll carry on with the posts about Darwin and mental illness shortly, but as a brief interlude I just wanted to share another discussion I've been having with a fanatical evolutionist, over on Quora. This man was very upset that I mentioned God in one of my responses, and took me to task for being so 'naive' and plain dumb.
This is how things played out. BTW, this isn't finished yet. My guess is that the fanatical evolutionist will now resort to name-calling and general personal attacks, as that's what usually happens when you show these people they're talking rubbish.
FANATICAL EVOLUTIONIST (FE):
It is your opinion that there is a God, there is no proof of such thing.
Thanks for your opinion of my opinion. There is currently far more scientific proof that God exists than that the theory of evolution is valid in any way, shape or form.
If you have proof that the theory of evolution is definitely right, and that God doesn’t exist, I’d love to see it.
That is undeniably false, you can not show me any proof that there is a God. God is a three letter word made up by man to deal with life’s absurdity and questions of why we're here. Are you denying evolution?
Yes, completely. Evolution is 9 letter word made up by people who want an excuse to take God out of the picture, and to pretend that life is utterly meaningless. There is no scientific evidence to support macro evolution - I’ve been having this debate with other people on Quora for weeks already, and no-one can come up with any evidence.
So please, make my day and prove me (and about a million other scientists…) wrong about evolution.
Rivka, there is much more proof for evolution than there ever will be for a god. Are you this naive or totally brainwashed by religion?
You are proving the point that the people who spout off about evolution have NO evidence to back it up. If you have the evidence, please, stick the links up here for everyone else to enlighten themselves too.
8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
I can't believe I'm stopping this low and really arguing this.
The post you sent me contains 8 opinions and no real science.
Point 1: It claims DNA ‘proves’ evolution.
If you pick up a copy of: Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent life, written by Professor Stephen Meyer, PHD, he reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA.
Someone else summed the problem with this claim very neatly (please note - what follows is fact not opinion. Please let me know what SCIENCE you have challenging the mathematic probabality of evolution being zero):
Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem.
Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10/164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 10/65 atoms in the known universe.
Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 10/41,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brook and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero.
Point 2: Transitional fossils
This post gives one example of a transitional fossil - a reptile with turtle-type features (and isn’t that backwards, by the way? I thought amphibians came first according to your theory?) Here’s what the scientists say:
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.The deficiencies are real, they are never going to be filled.” - Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, summing up his 40 years of work on the subject in his book: Synthetische Artbildung:
“There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums. This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on earth today…But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
“When you look for links between major groups of animals they simply aren’t there… Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that…
“Museums have, for instance, countless piles of fossils of the early invertebrate sea creatures, and an equally large number of ancient fishes. Between the two, covering a period of about 100 million years, there ought to have been cabinets full of intermediates - indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and vertebrates began.
“But this isn’t the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, fully-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be.” - Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe
Point 3: The Matching traits point - is pure pseudo-science. Where’s the SCIENCE to back up the author’s opinion?
Point 4:Identifying vestigial traits - i.e., the idea that a human appendix is a ‘throw back’ to when they were a monkey or something.
Most of what arrogant western doctors consider to be ‘vestigial’ actually do have a use in the human body, just they haven’t yet figured it out, because they don’t know everything about human health.
Take a look at this article: Your Appendix is Useful After All as one example, but tonsils - another one of the ‘vestigial traits’ quoted by this author - are also part of the immune system and serve an important function in the body.
Point 5: Identifying Imperfect Characteristics - more pseudo-scientific opinon with no SCIENCE behind it.
Point 6: Studying Early Embryo Development - i.e the idea that humans used to be fish / monkeys etc because the embryo goes through a stage of looking like these creatures as it grows in the womb.
Ernst Haeckel, a german biologist, was the first person who proposed this idea, and even did a very nice text book showing how it occurred. There was just one problem: Haeckel blatantly faked many of his diagrams and falsified his ‘science’, something that he only admitted to many, many years later, after his theory had gained mainstream acceptance as being ‘scientifically proven’.
It’s amazing how much false ‘science’ the theory of evolution is built on (Piltdown Man, anyone?). or not really so amazing, as THERE IS NO REAL SCIENCE BACKING IT UP, as the post you sent is proving very nicely.
Point 7: Observing evolution over short time-scales - This is a non-point. No one is arguing micro-evolution, where a human being can grow taller etc, if fed better.
We’re talking about macro-evolution here - where an ape become a human - and there is NO evidence for that whatsoever.
Point 8: Simulating evolution on computers. Gosh, well this is SUCH a scientific argument that I’m stumped for a rejoinder on this one. If it was simulated on computers than it must be real. And Darth Vader is alive and well, and Shrek is living somewhere in Miami.
Please, FANATICAL EVOLUTIONIST, send me some REAL science, not pseudo-scientific opinion that insults the reader’s intelligence.
So you accuse me of showing no evidence of evolution and then you proceed to show no proof of God.
Mate, you’re the one who got all upset that I didn’t ‘believe’ in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists like to harp on about how scientific they are, and how rational they are. All that’s happened here is that I’ve clearly demonstrated that evolution requires much more ‘belief’ - and suspension of intellect - than God does.
Evolutionism is the religion of atheism, and is preached at people with alarming fanaticism. But facts are facts, and the facts show that evolution is a crock.
At least be honest enough to accept that evolution is a false theory, and stop having a go at people who prefer to believe that God created the world. At this stage of the game, the scientific evidence is tilted far more towards ‘creation’ than evolution.