The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: ChemEngrMBA on November 03, 2022, 03:52:18 pm
-
Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison
Ironically it was the (pseudo) science propounded by Charles Darwin that led Japanese leaders to envision themselves as the race superior to Chinese, whom they bayoneted by the hundreds of thousands, Filipinos, whom they bayoneted by the thousands, Koreans, whom they kept as "comfort women" by the thousands, and anyone else who dared to oppose them. After all, the title of Darwin's book was On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
Like the Japanese, the Nazis thought themselves the favored race, hence the term "Aryan Supremacy."
I am unable to post the photograph of the science of destruction visited upon Hiroshima was downloaded at random from the internet. How ironic that this photograph is numbered "731," which was the designation of a Japanese Unit ordered to utilize science to find the most efficient ways of killing undesirables, by the thousands.
Unit 731 731部隊
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Operation Downfall, the planned allied invasion of Japan, was estimated to cost 1,000,000 American casualties and 10,000,000 Japanese casualties due to the fanatical, suicidal resistance of the Japanese, as evidenced across the Pacific and particularly at Okinawa. Largely for this reason, President Truman authorized the use of nuclear bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which saved millions of lives.
___________________
It goes without saying, (Peter) Atkins adds, that "there is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence." Science is, after all, "the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Renaissance." - The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski, page 7
These comical declarations may be abbreviated by observing that Atkins is persuaded that not only is science a very good thing, but no other thing is good at all. (Ibid)
Hitler's Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was "motivated by an ethic that prided itself in being scientific." (From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany) - page 27
The psychologist Steven Pinker has thus introduced into the discussion the remarkable claim that "something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler. On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture.” - Page 21
A Shockingly Happy Picture by Excess Deaths
First World War 15 million
Soviet Union, Stalin's Regime 20 million
Second World War 55 million
People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong 40 million
Congo Free State 8 million
Russian Civil War 9 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians 1.5 million
Kinshasa, Congo 3.8 million
Second Indochina War 3.5 million
Korean War 2.8 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge 1.65 million - Page 22
[Two more pages of death statistics follow, painting the "shockingly happy picture"]
This is not to say that science is bad, but rather that like intelligence, it is a force that can be used for good or evil. Unfortunately the claim is made endlessly by the godless Left, the counterpart to the "religious right" that is so frequently attacked, that science is their (godless Left's) exclusive domain, and it is exclusively good. Almost every aspect of their claim is a lie.
Hitler's scientists and doctors enthusiastically pursued the synthesis and manufacture of Zyklon B poison gas and horrific experiments on innocent civilians much the same as the Japanese did.
"We can survive without science, but we cannot survive without religion." - Vox Day
________________________________
Additional Abuses in the Name of "Science"
Sacrificing Humans for Birds
Advanced warfare through science is assuredly not the only misuse of science. It's also misused for a variety of other reasons. Under the pretense of protecting birds, DDT was banned worldwide, resulting in millions of deaths, primarily in Africa, from malaria. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson misled and deceived but it made godless leftists feel good and wasn't that special. How many more will suffer and die as the costs of climate change are borne disproportionately by those in desperate need of the essentials of life.
Democrats want to ban fossil fuels for the good of humanity. Sound familiar?
______________________________
Murdering Babies for Economic Convenience Misnamed "Choice"
Today, medical science is responsible for killing another million innocent, unborn babies annually in America, a disproportionate number of them black (6 times the ratio of whites). This evil was initiated by Margaret Sanger under the Darwinian pretense of improving the human race by ridding America of blacks. This is the lie of "choice" when the father has no "choice" as to whether he will never see his own child, or pay child support for eighteen years. The four grandparents, who may be willing and able to raise their grandchild, have no "choice." My own niece had to adopt a child from Russia because none are available here in the United States due to the savagery of the godless Left. My dear friend's grandson, born to a drug-addicted mother, was adopted by a beautiful and loving couple 3,000 miles away, who were thrilled finally to find a baby to have and hold and love, such is the scarcity of babies in America given up for adoption, due to abortions.
____________________________
Researching Anything, Everything, and Nothing
How many billions of dollars are squandered worldwide for scientific research of no value beyond "We want the money and we're scientists!" Anyone questioning anything these folks in white coats wish to fund, with YOUR money, is subjected to vitriolic calumny.
Crazy Research the U.S. Government is Funding
How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill? Really? Do we need to spend $3 million just to watch shrimps run on a treadmill?
Does playing FarmVille on Facebook help people to make friends and keep them?
How do you ride a bike?
_______________________________
University of California Bringing in Hundreds of Thousands of Asians For Scientific Greed
Annual fees for California residents at UCI total $15,621.10. Foreign students pay an additional $29,754.00. (www.reg.uci.edu) .
So University of California campuses are admitting tens of thousands of Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and anyone else not born in California to "enhance their revenues." Private sector profits = "bad." Education revenues =wonderful. Brilliant. Resourceful. Diversifying.
Foreigners use college as a guise for immigrating to the U.S. and then bring their families with them by the tens of thousands. The Chinese in particular take advantage of American and university stupidity.
-
Is the OP saying that science is a fraud?
-
I think his beef is that science is being used and abused for more evil purposes than good.
It was all downhill after the eugenics movements of the 1800s.
-
Is the OP saying that science is a fraud?
You must be a Leftist. You misconstrue, and almost certainly intentionally.
I cited examples where science is misused for evil purposes. You spun that in a misleading way.
Leftists and atheists prattle "science, science, science," pretending that they alone have a monopoly on science, which most of them can spell and not much else.
Leftists and atheists lie through their teeth that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. They are obviously ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in sciences are Christians or Jews, NOT atheists.
Another of my many websites: http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
-
I think his beef is that science is being used and abused for more evil purposes than good.
No, that was not my point at all. I simply point out the obvious fact that science has been used for evil purposes, by intellectuals.
Science and intellectualism are the constant boasts of atheists and Leftists, without ever demonstrating evidence of their claims.
The Unabomber is a genius. So what. Intellectualism is very different from wisdom, which Leftists and atheists obviously lack, in general.
-
You must be a Leftist. You misconstrue, and almost certainly intentionally.
I cited examples where science is misused for evil purposes. You spun that in a misleading way.
Leftists and atheists prattle "science, science, science," pretending that they alone have a monopoly on science, which most of them can spell and not much else.
Leftists and atheists lie through their teeth that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. They are obviously ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in sciences are Christians or Jews, NOT atheists.
Another of my many websites: http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
Wow. Ad hominem much?
-
I think his beef is that science is being used and abused for more evil purposes than good.
It was all downhill after the eugenics movements of the 1800s.
It's true. Science as a whole started scaring me more and more around 20 years ago.
We are doing good things yes, but there is so much evil being done too. And that's what we know about.
-
Wow. Ad hominem much?
Instead of simply tossing out a one-line giggle point, as Leftists do incessantly, why don't you point out any gross errors I made and explain why they were wrong? That would be too difficult, wouldn't it.
I cited irrefutable historical catastrophes, in the name of "science" and followed up with facts about deadly, evil atheism, and you think your one-liner cancels all those out? Not remotely.
Do you EVER challenge your Leftist brethren with "ad hominem much"?
Of course you don't. You enjoy theirs and partake of them.
"Flat earther." "Bible-thumper." "Anti-science." "bleep."
Hypocrite much?
-
Instead of simply tossing out a one-line giggle point, as Leftists do incessantly, why don't you point out any gross errors I made and explain why they were wrong? That would be too difficult, wouldn't it.
I cited irrefutable historical catastrophes, in the name of "science" and followed up with facts about deadly, evil atheism, and you think your one-liner cancels all those out? Not remotely.
Do you EVER challenge your Leftist brethren with "ad hominem much"?
Of course you don't. You enjoy theirs and partake of them.
"Flat earther." "Bible-thumper." "Anti-science." "bleep."
Hypocrite much?
Okey-dokey. I knew there was a use for the ignore list.
-
It's true. Science as a whole started scaring me more and more around 20 years ago.
We are doing good things yes, but there is so much evil being done too. And that's what we know about.
Interesting subject. One of my worries is that computer technology advanced so rapidly and become so omnipresent that little effort has been given to understanding it’s long term evolutionary impact on human physiology and psychosocial functions—not to mention the possibility of developing cyborg technology.
In my lifetime computer technology has sprung up and altered society in some strange ways that make me uneasy. Imagine what a thousand lifetimes of computer advancements will do to humans and what society would look like.
-
Imagine what a thousand lifetimes of computer advancements will do to humans and what society would look like.
We do not have a thousand lifetimes. Our Brilliant Creator gave us an extremely large supply of underground energy sources, but not unlimited. Those supplies constitute our time limit here on earth.
-
Interesting subject. One of my worries is that computer technology advanced so rapidly and become so omnipresent that little effort has been given to understanding it’s long term evolutionary impact on human physiology and psychosocial functions—not to mention the possibility of developing cyborg technology.
In my lifetime computer technology has sprung up and altered society in some strange ways that make me uneasy. Imagine what a thousand lifetimes of computer advancements will do to humans and what society would look like.
Absolute yes. And it is my belief that since WWII the tech that is, and the tech we know, are wildly divergent. I don't think the citizenry has been kept in the light to all that's out there.
One thing that has always stuck with me came from my Dad. One time in the early 70's he showed his boss a Popular Science or Mechanics issue with the speculated Stealth fighter or bomber that would come along a few years after.
His boss had been in military intelligence, I assume during Nam or therebouts. He told my dad that is you are reading that, what they really have is 10+ years more advanced, what's on the drawing board 10+ years beyond that, and what they are conceiving is 10+ years beyond that.
Don't think he meant that in a positive light either. I believe the things you listed need to be considered as real possibilities, and may already be here in some hole in the ground, ready to be revealed when the time is right.
-
Absolute yes. And it is my belief that since WWII the tech that is, and the tech we know, are wildly divergent. I don't think the citizenry has been kept in the light to all that's out there.
////
He told my dad that is you are reading that, what they really have is 10+ years more advanced, what's on the drawing board 10+ years beyond that, and what they are conceiving is 10+ years beyond that.
That may be in some areas, however it seems to take a very long time to develop simple concepts or inventions.
First example: Tennis was invented in 1873. Rackets came out commercially in 1874, made of wood and flat strings.
One hundred forty-nine years later, tennis rackets are still string the same way, flat. This is despite the increase in tennis racket depth, front to back, the change in racket materials, in string composition, and most importantly, in play. Everyone now utilizes topspin and slice, moving the racket head across the ball to make it spin forward or backward. This greatly increases the number of mishits due to framing the ball.
I have a patent pending on the first new method of stringing rackets in 149 years. Halfway measures were attempted by Prince and Dunlop but they were unsuccessful. Mine may not work either but you have to go with what you have.
That research brought me to snow skiing, where the US Ski Association was formed in 1905 but skis were tied to your legs until ski stops were invented around 1961. They still didn't catch on for a decade or more after that.
Now we have pendants with a button you must push to summon help if you fall down. What if you knock yourself out, or lay down and pass out? Nobody can push a button! Millions of users and we're stuck with crude tech. So I invented an App that automatically summons 3 to 5 of your neighbors and relatives which you choose on your smart phone. I will sell it for half the cost of the goofy pendants and cut the price $1 annually until they are free. I hope to put them all out of business while saving hundreds of lives, not just of subscribers, but also of their helpless loved ones living with them.
It will call for help when you have chosen if you need help.
Nine hour sleep period while charging and the process resumes.
Simple, but nobody else got it. Why not?
-
To me, that is the most damaging aspect to the fouchi reign of abuse.
Science is apolitical, the application of the result of science is the abuse, two separate issues
-
You must be a Leftist.
Instead of simply tossing out a one-line giggle point, as Leftists do incessantly,
[...]
Do you EVER challenge your Leftist brethren with "ad hominem much"?
Of course you don't. You enjoy theirs and partake of them.
"Flat earther." "Bible-thumper." "Anti-science." "bleep."
Bullshit. @Kamaji is no leftist and you are in violation of board rules.
Foremost, stop making it personal.
-
To me, that is the most damaging aspect to the fouchi reign of abuse.
Science is apolitical, the application of the result of science is the abuse, two separate issues
THE POINT IS that atheists and other Leftists preach "science, science, science" while proclaiming themselves the supreme rulers of it. All others are "stupid" and "anti-science."
In fact lies are their metiers. Science is clearly not the strictly positive and beneficial field they claim it to be. It is terribly abused in this Covid Panic, in preaching atheism and climate change and Darwinian evolution.
-
Bullshit. @Kamaji is no leftist and you are in violation of board rules.
Foremost, stop making it personal.
"Ad hominem much" was his personal attack on me. You seem to have missed his opening salvo. If he is no Leftist, he sure fooled me. If "hypocrite much" is a violation, then so is "ad hominem much."
-
"Ad hominem much" was his personal attack on me. You seem to have missed his opening salvo. If he is no Leftist, he sure fooled me. If "hypocrite much" is a violation, then so is "ad hominem much."
His opening remark was merely a question against the OP - The OP is an object, usually referring to the article, not the poster.
Your reply to that was indeed ad hominem, attacking him personally as an inference toward him being a liberal followed by a direct accusation in your next reply. Your personal insults and attacks render your thoughts fetid.
And he did NOTHING hypocritical... All he did was point out the ad hominem, which is TRUE. The rest was all you.
Perhaps you would do well to learn the art of argument.
@Kamaji
-
His opening remark was merely a question against the OP - The OP is an object, usually referring to the article, not the poster.
Your reply to that was indeed ad hominem, attacking him personally as an inference toward him being a liberal followed by a direct accusation in your next reply. Your personal insults and attacks render your thoughts fetid.
And he did NOTHING hypocritical... All he did was point out the ad hominem, which is TRUE. The rest was all you.
Perhaps you would do well to learn the art of argument.
@Kamaji
Accurate summation @roamer_1
-
His opening remark was merely a question against the OP - The OP is an object, usually referring to the article, not the poster.
///
His opening remark was: "Is the OP saying that science is a fraud?"
This is the methodology of Leftists, putting their words in the mouths of others.
NOWHERE did I say or imply that "science is a fraud."
Nor is that "merely a question." It was an intentional insult.
You need to learn the art of argumentation.
-
↑
What @roamer_1 said.
-
His opening remark was: "Is the OP saying that science is a fraud?"
This is the methodology of Leftists, putting their words in the mouths of others.
NOWHERE did I say or imply that "science is a fraud."
Nor is that "merely a question." It was an intentional insult.
You need to learn the art of argumentation.
Baloney. It was a question. You're putting a whole lot of baggage into less than 10 words. Even if it was meant to be argumentative, it was no open insult. It was properly couched. Yours was not. The better way would be to pick up the challenge intellectually, rather than immediately throwing poo. That's the difference between an intellectual argument and screeching insults... You know, like liberals do. happy77
But I have said enough. Anyone who reads this thread can judge for themselves... Including Admin. Have a nice day.
-
TRUE science is indeed apolitical just like a gun, or any other thing. HOW science is used is the responsibility of the user! End of story!
Our problem is that nowadays much of what we see under the label of "science" is no such thing. Not even remotely. CO2 being labeled a pollutant is prima facia evidence.
-
Baloney. It was a question.
Do you still beat your wife?
"It was a question."
How is your transgender surgery working out?
"It was a question."
You may pretend that "ad hominem" is calling evil what it truly is.
I would say it is accurately describing acts I pointed out by Nazis and Japanese who slaughtered wantonly.
-
Do you still beat your wife?
"It was a question."
I don't have a wife.
How is your transgender surgery working out?
"It was a question."
I have never had transgender surgery.
See how easy that is? No fault, no foul.
You may pretend that "ad hominem" is calling evil what it truly is.
I pretend nothing, and you are becoming incoherent. The ad hominem attack was performed by YOU. And it shows the paucity of your position - the need to 'attack the man' is always a weak attempt, a show of fear or intellectual scarcity in the argument
That's why it is seldom used in classical argument. It is weak.
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.
I would say it is accurately describing acts I pointed out by Nazis and Japanese who slaughtered wantonly.
Which has nothing at all to do with the point at hand.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:yowsa: Exactly right! @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.
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.
-
"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.
-
I seem to remember some pope saying something about how the crossbow would bring about extinction of the human species.
-
@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...
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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*.
-
Calculus.
-
Calculus.
No, abacus
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
“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-
-
“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 (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.
-
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"
-
‘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
-
‘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!
-
"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it." - Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils
-
Scientific Hoaxes
1. Global Starvation Predicted by Thomas Malthus - 1798
Malthus' "Essay on the Principles of Population" was published in 1798. In it, a scientific treatise proposed global starvation as the worldwide population was to far outstrip mankind's ability to grow crops to feed humanity. Both Charles Darwin and Wallace independantly arrived at similar theories of Natural Selection after reading Malthus.
2. Haekel's Faked Drawings circa 1870
"Ontogony recapitulates phylogeny." Everyone in biology classes learned this elementary proverb of Darwinism. Except it was a fraud.
"Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start ." - Harvard biology professor Stephen J Gould
3. Piltdown Man
Eoanthropus dawsoni, or Piltdown man, was found in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Sussex in 1912 by Charles Dawson, and for 40 years Piltdown man, with his huge, humanlike braincase and apelike jaw, remained on display in what is now the Natural History Museum in London as an example of the notorious "missing link" between humanity and its primate ancestors.
On November 21, 1953, however, scientists pronounced it a crude forgery, the marriage of a modern human skull and an orangutan's jaw, and decided that the entire package of fossil fragments at Piltdown - which included a ludicrous prehistoric cricket bat - had been planted by someone.
The world of paleontology went pink, and the conspiracy theorists went ape. There was no shortage of potentially guilty men to name, and for the next five decades, they named them.
4. The Miller-Urey Experiment - 1953
Single-digit percentages of two or three different amino acids were produced in precise laboratory experiments, beginning with water, nitrogen, oxygen, and high voltages of electricity, intended to simulate primordial earth conditions. This electrified the evolutionary biology community into making yet another quantum extrapolation leap of pseudo-science. Only decades later was the finding made that primordial conditions were not at all like those of the Miller-Urey Experiment, where by the way, a hopelessly inadequate number of hopelessly dilute amino acids had been synthesized in racemic mixtures, rather than the levorotary, optically active enantiomers of which living tissue is comprised.
5. The amazing Tasaday tribe
In 1971 Manuel Elizalde, a Philippine government minister, discovered a small stone age tribe living in utter isolation on the island of Mindanao. These people, the Tasaday, spoke a strange language, gathered wild food, used stone tools, lived in caves, wore leaves for clothes, and settled matters by gentle persuasion. They made love, not war, and became icons of innocence; reminders of a vanished Eden.
They also made the television news headlines, the cover of National Geographic, were the subject of a bestselling book, and were visited by Charles A Lindbergh and Gina Lollobrigida. Anthropologists tried to get a more sustained look, but President Marcos declared a 45,000-acre Tasaday reserve and closed it to all visitors.
After Marcos was deposed in 1986, two journalists got in and found that the Tasaday lived in houses, traded smoked meat with local farmers, wore Levi's T-shirts and spoke a recognizable local dialect. The Tasadays explained that they had only moved into caves, donned leaves and performed for cameras under pressure from Elizalde - who had fled the country in 1983 along with millions from a foundation set up to protect the Tasaday. Elizalde died in 1997.
5. Global Starvation Predicted by The Club of Rome - 1972
Intellectuals calling themselves The Club of Rome commissioned "The Limits to Growth" predicting mass starvation based on the same principles as those used by Thomas Malthus 226 years earlier. It was published in 1972.
6. Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor
National Geographic magazine November, 1999
Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.
-
http://TheGlobalWarmingScam.blogspot.com
Please provide me with any additional information not shown on The Global Warming Scam or The Global Warming Fraud at wordpress. It will take you about a day to review everything on just those two sites.
-
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.
Thirty-one of those thirty-two "possible ways" of spelling a word would be wrong, wouldn't they.
When Richard Dawkins proclaims the magic of "selection," he never allows for incorrect spelling.
Nor does a polypeptide sequence allow for an incorrect insertion into the long chain.
For example, sickle cell anemia is caused by a single incorrect amino acid inserted into the 528 link
sequence of hemoglobin. It causes chronic shortage of oxygen and can be fatal. That's just ONE
"misspelling" of 528. Titin has ~34,000 sequences. There are around 10,000 others as well.
-
"The science is in" on *climate change*, and on *Darwinian evolution*, and on *Covid-19 jabs and masks*.
"The experts say....."
The experts SAID:
"There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.” – Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, 2007
“iPhone will crash in flames.” – Tech Author David Platt
“Will fail badly.” -Tech Journalist Bill Ray
"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.
Medical doctors and nurses combined kill 250,000 – 400,000 patients every year through malpractice, according to scholarly studies.
I have many, many more such "experts say" quotes, for anyone interested.
-
The fatuous pretense that a "fluctuation in a quantum vacuum made the universe defies science, rationality, and reason.
You know that old saying, "I came into this world with nothing and I've still got most of it"?
Well,
This observation just popped into my head this week. (1998)
Let me explain.
I just finished reading The Science of God by Gerald L Schroeder. Fascinating book.
Reflecting on God's creation made me think of His engineering efficiency.
Engineers always try to optimize their use of materials. Hence they build hollow things because a hollow tube is much stronger than a solid one of the same weight.
Bones are hollow, bridge frames are hollow, and so forth.
Interestingly, atoms are hollow too. I recently calculated that only 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 of an atom is matter. The rest is nothing.
Now let's address the universe. The universe consists of roughly
10^56 grams of matter. As I recall, this is spread over 10^28 feet in diameter. Here's the math.
10^28 cubed is 10^84 cubic feet.
Now since the universe consists of about 90% hydrogen and 8% helium, we could use hydrogen as a good approximation for everything. Our sun is 1.4 times the density of water.
Water is 62.416 pounds per cubic foot at 32 degrees F.
62 x 1.4 = approximately 87 pounds per cubic foot.
Therefore 10^56 / 87 pounds per cubic foot = 1.15 x 10^54 cubic feet.
Dividing the volume of all matter, 10^54 cubic feet, by the volume of the entire universe, 10^84, gives us one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or one part in 10^30.
In other words, for every cubic mile of stuff there is, you have to travel ten billion miles, on average, to find the next cubic mile of it. Pluto is "only" 3.6 billion miles from our sun. So overall, the universe has about one third of a cubic mile of hydrogen (and helium, etc) for every volume the size of our solar system.
God made the universe out of nothing. Nothing in science can be twisted to provide any naturalistic explanation.
(Well then who made God?)
If someone made God, He wouldn’t be God, would He? – Professor John Lennox, Oxford University
-
The density of a neutron is approx 2.7E11 kg/cm3. That should give you some idea of how much empty space is in an atom.
-
The density of a neutron is approx 2.7E11 kg/cm3. That should give you some idea of how much empty space is in an atom.
You have to wonder what it is made of...
What is the difference between the material in a neutron and a proton and an electron?
What would they look like if we could see a bucketful of each, and feel them?