The Science Fraud

[ChemEngrMBA]

I don't have a wife.

I have never had transgender surgery.

See how easy that is? No fault, no foul.

Yes they were fouls.  They were idiotic insults, as are so commonly used by the Left.
I used them to make a point which went right over your head because you are so intent on defending your pal, no matter what.  That too is a Leftist tactic.

Too bad too... I had entered this thread to participate - And my anti-science stance is well known here, and I predictably would have bolstered your claims, at least tangentially, had the conversation not taken such a threadbare and petty turn.

Which has nothing at all to do with the point at hand.

It's so "threadbare and petty" that you go on and on and on.  Here's what to do with pettiness when it persists as yours does.  You ignore it, which you studiously refused to do.  Arguing pettiness means more to you than pursuing the topic. So now I will ignore you for derailing the thread along with your "ad hominem much" friend who added nothing to the main point.

ciao.

[DB]

Much of what is called "science" today isn't science at all. It's an agenda to convince people to do things based on a claim of authority where none exists.

[Bigun]

Much of what is called "science" today isn't science at all. It's an agenda to convince people to do things based on a claim of authority where none exists.

Exactly right! @DB

[ChemEngrMBA]

Much of what is called "science" today isn't science at all. It's an agenda to convince people to do things based on a claim of authority where none exists.

I have been documenting different things on my computers for many years now and one such page is concerns the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, which could be called "When Experts Were Wrong."


(First two pages only)

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," -- Western Union internal memo, 1876

"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." - Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.

... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men. - British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison's light bulb, 1878.
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere."- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.

"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

"Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."  - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904

"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."- Scientific American, Jan. 2 edition, 1909

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner (1881-1958), founder of Warner Brothers, in 1927

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

 "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."- Albert Einstein, 1932.

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," - Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson (1874-1956), Chairman of IBM, 1943


"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest, Inventor of TV

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project, advising President Truman on atomic weaponry, 1944.

"Very interesting Whittle, my boy, but it will never work."- Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle's plan for the jet engine.

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"It will be gone by June." - Variety, passing judgement on rock 'n roll in 1955.

[Free Vulcan]

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner (1881-1958), founder of Warner Brothers, in 1927

I think that guy might have been on to something.

And Lord Kelvin was a serious party pooper.

[Hoodat]

I seem to remember some pope saying something about how the crossbow would bring about extinction of the human species.

[DB]

@DeerSlayer thanks for the list.

The additions to the list aren't going to slow down any time soon... We've had some real whoppers in the last few years...

[ChemEngrMBA]

@DeerSlayer thanks for the list.

The additions to the list aren't going to slow down any time soon... We've had some real whoppers in the last few years...

I have more if you wish, DB.  Just say the word and KaPow !  They'll be posted.

[DB]

I have more if you wish, DB.  Just say the word and KaPow !  They'll be posted.

I don't know of any reason not to. It demonstrates how some very brilliant people got it wrong from time to time no matter their position of authority. And that consensus is not science.

[ChemEngrMBA]

I don't know of any reason not to. It demonstrates how some very brilliant people got it wrong from time to time no matter their position of authority. And that consensus is not science.

For my good Bud, DB:

"Space travel is utter bilge." - Richard Van Der Riet Woolley, upon assuming the post of Astronomer Royal in 1956.

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"Space travel is bunk." - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

 "There will never be a bigger plane built." - A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people.

"We stand on the threshold of rocket mail." -– U.S. postmaster general Arthur Summerfield, in 1959.

 "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible," -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make," -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out," -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."- Dennis Gabor, British physicist and author of Inventing the Future, 1962.

"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States."- T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer Robert Lloyd at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this," -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- professor of electrical engineering, New York University

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." -- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

[ChemEngrMBA]

"Wear a mask and get vaccinated to protect yourself from Covid-19!  Really! " - 2020

"Save the planet - buy an EV." - 2020

"Men can have babies." - 2022

"Abort unborn babies.  They're just unwanted garbage." - November, 2022

"Carbon Dioxide is poison!   Stop it!" - Past 40 years

[ChemEngrMBA]

Today's Wordle game is a real bugger.   We work Wordles daily and could not solve this one.

In one of his books on evolution, biologist Richard Dawkins makes the statement that monkeys could type the entire works of Shakespeare.  This is supposed to be scientific evidence for his claim of nonsense *selection*.

Dawkins also said statistics works, but you have to do it right.  He cannot and will not.

Proof:

Dawkins admits his definition of "impossible" is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

There are 104 keys on a computer keyboard, and nobody uses typewriters any longer.

To to meet the threshold of impossibility, it is only necessary to point out that the probability of monkeys randomly typing out a sentence of just 20 characters in length is impossible.
1/100 to the 20th is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

Q.E.D.

Let's examine *selection* in the Wordle game.

You have six chances to guess a five-letter word every day.
Random mutations/guesses would put in random letters, say RLVOQ.

Wordle would shake it blocks back and forth "NO" and new random letters would have to be put in.
This would continue ad nauseum until finally a real word was randomly entered.
The probability of this happening is the number of five-letter words, ~70,000, divided by 26 to the 5th power
which equals 1.346 x 10 to the 19th power.

In other words, you would spend your lifetime trying to get the first random word even evaluated!!!
You could never possibly get the solution using random letter drops (mutations) followed by *selection*.


I've gotten a lot of Wordle solutions on my second try.  That is the difference between intelligent reality and Darwinian poo-bah.

[Hoodat]

There are 104 keys on a computer keyboard, and nobody uses typewriters any longer.

There are only 47 that actually type anything.  Also, with the 104-key scenario, you have to allow for multiple spellings of each word mixing upper case and lowercase.  So each 5-letter word would have 32 possible ways of spelling it.

[Kamaji]

Today's Wordle game is a real bugger.   We work Wordles daily and could not solve this one.

In one of his books on evolution, biologist Richard Dawkins makes the statement that monkeys could type the entire works of Shakespeare.  This is supposed to be scientific evidence for his claim of nonsense *selection*.

Dawkins also said statistics works, but you have to do it right.  He cannot and will not.

Proof:

Dawkins admits his definition of "impossible" is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

There are 104 keys on a computer keyboard, and nobody uses typewriters any longer.

To to meet the threshold of impossibility, it is only necessary to point out that the probability of monkeys randomly typing out a sentence of just 20 characters in length is impossible.
1/100 to the 20th is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

Q.E.D.

Let's examine *selection* in the Wordle game.

You have six chances to guess a five-letter word every day.
Random mutations/guesses would put in random letters, say RLVOQ.

Wordle would shake it blocks back and forth "NO" and new random letters would have to be put in.
This would continue ad nauseum until finally a real word was randomly entered.
The probability of this happening is the number of five-letter words, ~70,000, divided by 26 to the 5th power
which equals 1.346 x 10 to the 19th power.

In other words, you would spend your lifetime trying to get the first random word even evaluated!!!
You could never possibly get the solution using random letter drops (mutations) followed by *selection*.


I've gotten a lot of Wordle solutions on my second try.  That is the difference between intelligent reality and Darwinian poo-bah.

The infinite monkey theorem is a little more interesting than that, a little more complex than that, and goes back a little further than Dawkins:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[ChemEngrMBA]

There are only 47 that actually type anything.  Also, with the 104-key scenario, you have to allow for multiple spellings of each word mixing upper case and lowercase.  So each 5-letter word would have 32 possible ways of spelling it.

There are two entirely different analyses we are considering.
First was Dawkins' reference to typewriters and monkeys writing the entire works of Shakespeare:

The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins - Page 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

Whether a particular key types something on the paper or not is immaterial to the monkey hitting the key.
Moreover, once the carriage had moved to the far right margin, nothing else could be typed and the keys would lock.  No monkey is going to bother to throw the carriage back, much less unjam stuck keys, replace paper or ribbons.

The Wordle analysis pretends that you can only input letters into the five spaces, and those would be completely random in the Darwinian sense.  One chance in 10 to the 14th of ever getting a real word.

Yesterday's solution was AMBER, and we got that on the 5th try.  A tough one for thinking people. Impossible for *selection*.

[Kamaji]

Calculus.

[EdinVA]

Calculus.

No, abacus

[ChemEngrMBA]

The infinite monkey theorem is a little more interesting than that, a little more complex than that, and goes back a little further than Dawkins:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

It could be a lot more interesting than that and still be worthless and inane.
it certainly is not more complex than what Dawkins asserted so ignorantly.
I never said that Dawkins originated it.  In fact, I quoted him saying exactly the opposite.

Finally, a zoo in London placed several typewriters into a monkey enclosure in a carefully controlled scientific experiment.   They typed nothing remotely Shakespearean, not even one word.

[Kamaji]

It could be a lot more interesting than that and still be worthless and inane.
it certainly is not more complex than what Dawkins asserted so ignorantly.
I never said that Dawkins originated it.  In fact, I quoted him saying exactly the opposite.

Finally, a zoo in London placed several typewriters into a monkey enclosure in a carefully controlled scientific experiment.   They typed nothing remotely Shakespearean, not even one word.

Calculus.  More specifically, integration.

[ChemEngrMBA]

One of the greatest scientists of the Twentieth Century could not help but to associate his brilliant observations
with Nature's God, the Creator of science, matter, energy, and mankind.


The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not. - Einstein

 God does not play dice with the universe. -  Albert Einstein

I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details. - Albert Einstein

Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."  --Albert Einstein


   "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."  --Albert Einstein from Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche

The most brilliant scientists of all time pursued research to understand God's Creations.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

Our Supreme Court represents the greatest legal thinkers of America, at least until Democrats began politicizing it with imbeciles who don't know men from women.

   "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation." --U.S. Supreme Court (1892)

[Hoodat]

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man"

-Charles Darwin-

[ChemEngrMBA]

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man"

-Charles Darwin-

I have a vast collection of quotations from hundreds of sources and maintain a website refuting Darwinism viz.,
http://TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

I don't recall ever reading this quote by Darwin until you posted it.  Well done.  Thank you kindly.
I'll be using it.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
(Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")

Descent from a common ancestor is absurd in the highest degree possible.  Charles was just too ignorant of science to realize it.

[ChemEngrMBA]

Darwinian evolution is the most pervasive, most extensive fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science.
It is taught in schools and universities throughout America but comments such as the one below are strictly forbidden. To utter them in class is to draw instant condemnation and rancor, both of which are consummately unscientific.
____________________________________

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent." - Pathologist David A Demick, "The Blind Gunman"

[aligncare]

‘Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ is a generally accepted concept in evolutionary sciences.  Interesting study gathering data on the concept:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb4685

[ChemEngrMBA]

‘Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ is a generally accepted concept in evolutionary sciences.  Interesting study gathering data on the concept:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb4685

It is utter bullshit.
The origin is Haeckels Drawings which were fraudulent as proven in court within a year or two of their publication back in the 1800's.  They have been repeated through to the twenty-first century until finally someone said ENOUGH!