Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
In my library sits a slim volume on medical history dedicated to ‘Saint’ Louis Pasteur, part of the ‘founders of modern medicine’ series of expositions on ‘great men’ and their ‘discoveries’. Before the Korona plan-demic and scam-demic I accepted the book’s information at face value. Since then, it has deserved another far more critical look. The book’s observations and conclusions can be viewed online in ‘official’ websites who disseminate ‘truth and information’ including the Encyclopaedia Britannica amongst other gatekeepers.
This volume on Pasteur and his ‘greatness’ declaims the wonders of the man and his mind, and of course, the endless bounty of health and goodness he has bestowed on all of humanity, enabled by the Church of Science and its ‘Enlightenment’. Of especial emphasis is of course Pasteur’s role in microbiology, germ theory and vaccinations and their extended use across husbandry and humans. He is definitely part of the ‘appeal to authority’ from the ‘modern’ and very corrupt Pharmaceutical-Government-‘Science’ complex who advocate the same.
If the ‘establishment’ listed the top 10 scientists of all time, Saint Louis the Germinator and Vaccinator would be near the top. This ranking and eulogia is not entirely mistaken, for much of what Pasteur did accomplish is amazing and cannot be ‘revisioned’ as anything but exemplary. This is true until he gets involved in the quackcination racket and forms his poorly explained ‘germ theory’, or his mythical virus transmission of disease, both of which are still looking for proof.
At these critical junctures the science stops, and the malevolent behaviour begins. During these episodes from 1860 to his death, Pasteur quickly devolves into a Jennerian figure who likely engaged in fraud and corruption to ‘prove’ that germs cause disease and that chemical injections stopped the spread of ‘infectious’ disease.
A brief outline of Pasteur is given below, which highlights why we can’t simply reimagine him to be a-scientific, or without great merit - until his forays into germ theory and chemical injections. We also cannot dismiss many of his contemporary critics who were largely correct in their objections to both philosophies. Unlike the half-wit corrupted-fraud Jenner, Pasteur was indeed a remarkable scientist and innovator.
· Born in 1822, the son of a tanner in the rural village or hamlet of Arbois France, his grandfather was a serf who bought his freedom at age 30
· Pasteur was a practicing Catholic his whole life and this definitely impacted his worldview of science and medicine
· October 1843 Pasteur enters the Ecole Normale, in 1847 to finalise his degree he begins to address problems in the domain of organic chemistry
· Pasteur could blow glass and construct his own instruments which he begins to do whilst studying citing a paucity of equipment and lack of funding
· Professor of Chemistry in 1848 in Strasbourg
· Becomes Dean of Science and Professor of Chemistry in 1854 in Lille aged 32
· Classes at Lille became famous, Pasteur taught students to grow crops, ferment vinegar and alcohol, weave cloth, forge metals and how to apply chemistry to manufacturing processes
· Proves during 1856-7, that living yeast cells cause fermentation by consuming sugar and changing it into (the now dreaded) carbon dioxide and alcohol, and further discovers that 2 yeast cells operate in fermentation – round cells which produce alcohol, and rod cells which produce bitter lactic acid and must be removed to keep the solution edible or drinkable
· 1857 becomes Director of Scientific Studies at the Ecole Normale in Paris
· Spontaneous generation of life, accepted since the time of Aristotle is refuted by Pasteur, who using his yeast cell experiments and detailed microscopy and observations, to show that cells can only arise from similar living matter (1857-1860)
· Pasteur’s experiments support those of Spallazani and others, by using a S-shaped flask to keep out large particles but allowing air into a boiled solution at the bottom, he experimentally proves that spontaneous generation does not exist (no bacteria were formed in the liquid spontaneously)
· Pasteur theorises that the air is full of ‘germs’ or floating microscopic plants and animals (1860)
· His experiments using heated broth in a container left open to the air showed quick spoilation and mould formation
· In an open air display at the Sorbonne, Pasteur demonstrates that the S-flask containing boiled organic matter does not allow spontaneous generation of bacteria, whilst an open container holding the same does
· Comes out against Evolution as anti-science and impossible given the complexity of creation (this is ignored by the sycophants who in the main happily declare that the shrew became you, and nothing made everything, so they tolerate the Catholic Pasteur because he supports, nay created the cults of vaccination and viruses, no such tolerance is given if the hoi-polloi criticise Saint Darwin’s religion or the fiction of viruses and stabbinations) More here
unstabbinated.substack.com/p/scientism-and-the-myth-of-long-ages
The world is saturated with long-age accounts. From kindergarten until death, we are inundated with ‘proofs’ of endless time, allegedly premised on ‘scientific consensus’. This same term ‘consensus’ advocated the Medical Nazism of the Corona plan-demic and supports other theologies masquerading as ‘science’ including the Climate fraud, ‘Big Bang’ and Evolution.
It reminds one of the consensus culture of pre-Socractic Greece, replete with Hesiod, Homer and the age of myths, God, and demi-gods. A general belief in supernaturality and miracles including the rather limitless number of deeds performed by Heracles and other personas, usually to the benefit of a particular polis or region. So, it goes with much of the modern world’s consensus ‘science’. More fable than reality.
Is geology and the dating of rocks anywhere close to being a ‘science’ with irrefutable proof of long ages and billions of years?
Richard Milton, an atheist and well-known UK journalist and writer, wrote in ‘Shattering the Myths of Darwinism’:
“Recent research into the age of the Earth has produced evidence that our planet could be much younger than had previously been thought: existing methods of geochronometry such as uranium-lead decay and radiocarbon assay have been found to be deeply flawed and unreliable…only a catastrophist model of development can account for important Earth structures and processes such as continental drift and most fossil-bearing rock formations - most of the Earth's surface in fact. These major discoveries have had profound consequences for the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution, yet few of them have found their way into the public domain, still less into school or university textbooks or museum displays.”
Previous articles on the unreliability of the ‘gold standard’ techniques identified by Milton, namely C14, Isotope and Isochrony calculations, make it clear that there is little scientific veracity to long-age claims. You don’t need a PhD or a certification to understand that the processes used for long age dating of carbon-based material, or of rocks, are fraught with contradictions, assumptions and theories which do not consider observational reality and complexity.
As Milton says on the fraudulent, tautology that informs rock-dating:
“Most disconcerting of all is the fact that these various methods of dating commonly produce discordant ages for the same rock deposit. Where this occurs, a 'harmonization' of discordant dates is carried out - in other words, the figures are adjusted until they seem right. The chief tool employed to harmonize discordant dates is the simple device of labeling unexpected ages as anomalous and, in the future, discarding those rock samples that will lead to the 'anomalous' dates. This practice is the explanation of why many dating results seem to support each other -- because all samples that give ages other than expected values are rejected as being 'unsuitable' for dating.”
Milton is polite. The above circular ‘logic’ is called fraud to support the mythical ‘geological column’ which simply does not exist.
Georges Cuvier the great geologist and fossil expert from the early 19th century summed up the non-science of geology based on his observations of ‘experts’ pursuing data to support a-priori or pre-formed theoretical conclusions, despite evidence to the contrary:
“In fact it is fossils and petrifactions that, by exciting curiosity and awakening the imagination, have made geology take too rapid a course, and have made it move too carelessly beyond the first bases that it should have founded on facts, carrying it in search of causes, which should only have been its final result. In a word, they have changed it from a science of facts and observations into a fruitless web of hypotheses and conjectures, so much at odds with one another that it has become almost impossible to mention its name without provoking laughter.”
He was dismissing those pursuing the ‘geological column’ or endless layers of uniformitarian deposition. It simply does not exist. Cuvier’s remark was accurate in the early 19th century, and it is still relevant today. Nothing much has changed in 200 years. Geology is an a-priori induction theory approach which ignores contradictory evidence and deductive observations and reassembles data to support a pre-built conclusion. By definition a-priori inductions are not scientific. They are simply theoretical abstracts.
Cuvier observed the real world, especially the strata and layers of rocks and sediments around Paris where he lived. He found no evidence of uniformitarianism or layers of rock in nice, neat formations. In recent times his work has been corroborated. Field observations from natural disasters such as the Colorado 'Bijou Creek' flood of 1965, the formation of sediments following the Mount St. Helen's eruption in 1980, and ocean drilling by the Glomar Challenger survey vessel in 1975 are a few of many such proofs. According to the famed French geologist Guy Berthault who has studied these surveys, 'These experiments contradict the idea of the slow build-up of one layer followed by another. The time scale is reduced from hundreds of millions of years to one or more cataclysms producing almost instantaneous laminae.'
Richard Milton comments on why observations don’t support the ‘layer’ theory:
“This (long ages) has been the central belief of the Earth sciences since it was enunciated by Charles Lyell in 1833. Since 1985 French geologist Guy Berthault has carried out a series of laboratory experiments involving pouring sediments into large tanks of moving water to study the internal structure of the strata, and how lamination takes place. Berthault started his research at the Institut de Mechanique des Fluides at Marseilles and was later invited to complete his work at the hydraulics laboratory of Colorado University's Engineering Research center. Samples of laminated rocks were crumbled to reduce them to their original constituent particles of varying size.
The particles were sorted (and colored to make them easier to identify). They were then mixed together again and allowed to flow into a tank, first in a dry state, and later into water. What Berthault found was that when the sediments settled on the bottom they recreated the appearance of the original rocks from which they had come. But the strata were not formed by the deposition of a succession of layers as had been formerly assumed. Instead, the sediments settled on the bottom more or less immediately, but the fine particles were separated from larger particles by current flow, giving the appearance of layers.”
There is no observational proof that layers develop in uniform sections, laid down by ‘age’, the oldest ‘layer’ at the bottom the youngest at the top, all created by the Holy Spirit of ‘Time’, through the ‘accumulation of dust and soil’. Not a single experiment or observation can be offered by Long Agers after some 200 years of theorising, yet here we have a French scientist experimenting over 30 years who confirms quite readily and easily that the simplistic theory of layers is junk science. More here
(How much of a ‘science’ is geology really? When you investigate the telemetry and metrics applied to ‘aging’ artefacts the sceptical reviewer is left unimpressed.)
In a previous article radio-carbon testing as a tool for measuring ‘long ages’ was analysed, and any close examination reveals C14 dating to be crude and unscientific. Radiocarbon dating does not support long ages. Yet the ‘science’ claims that such techniques are ‘gold standards’ in chronometry and age identification. It is worth recapitulating the issues with radiocarbon dating before moving on to two other problematic areas for Long-Agers, namely that of isotopes and isochrony-dating. (The next article will apply these 3 methods to the Grand Canyon and other formations which reveals the gross inaccuracy and massively exaggerated long-age dates).
C-14 dating is premised on the following:
C-14 comes from the atmosphere and becomes part of the food chain.
Carbon 14 dating is only used on material that was once alive. Bones, flesh, plants, and any remains that are not entirely fossilized into rock are targets.
Once a plant or animal dies, it stops ingesting new C-14. Existing C-14 in the body continues to decay, reducing the percentage of C-14 to C-12 in the physical remains.
After pulling up a sample, and assuming no contamination occurs from the handlers, a sample’s percentage of C14-to C12 is measured, compared to the atmosphere’s percentage and the time since death is then calculated.
The above process is holed with assumptions and basic design flaws. C-14 dating cannot give long ages of anything.
- C-14 accuracy in dating is very limited, maybe up to 25.000 years or so, given that its half-life of only 5,730 years. It can’t age artefacts to be ‘millions of years old’.
- Long-Agers are dating samples of rocks to be millions of years old, when they contain microscopic fragments of shells, bone, graphite (wood) and other organic materials. This is impossible.
- Coal is decomposed or metamorphosed plant remains crushed under great pressure which presents another huge conundrum for uniformitarians (what caused the conditions to make coal?). Coal samples from deep mines have been dated (or assumed to date) from millions of years ago, yet every single sample contains and will contain based on its composition, C-How is this possible?
- Diamonds are very dense and not susceptible to internal contamination. Long Agers routinely ascribe ‘billions of years’ for diamond formation (another issue they cannot explain, namely, the heat, the pressure, the construction of such hard carbon-based forms). Yet every single diamond sample will contain C-14 – how can they possibly be ‘billions of years old’?
- Dragon or dinosaur tissue and bones have also been dated along with petrified wood, again from locations across the world. Every single sample contains and will contain, C-14. These artefacts cannot be millions of years old. Soft tissue and DNA (very unstable) also do not last millions of years.
The above is observational science. You can only twist these observations into millions and billions of years in age if you follow a philosophy and religious framework which demands illimitable ages as the answer.
The accepted theory about rock creation is that igneous rock is formed when it first cools down from a molten or semi-molten state, which may include a variety of elements, including radioactive ones. Within this cooling period radioactive elements decay from heavier larger atomic elements (parent) into smaller atomic elements (daughter) that are more stable.
An example is uranium (U) which decays into lead (Pb), a process which was confirmed by 1900 (Marie Curie discovered Polonium, see figure below). So, for the past century and more, there is observational science on the decay rate from uranium to lead and this has allegedly been proven stable.
Due to the assumed ‘stable rate of degradation’ (rates are in the above table), the amount of parent / daughter elements present today in a rock sample, can be used to calculate backwards to the estimated age of when the rock was first formed. This method is used only on metamorphic and igneous rocks – not sedimentary rocks (which are rocks laid down by water, where fossils are primarily found). However, this technique of radio-dating using uranium to lead decay (or back up the chain from lead), is based on a series of assumptions, which greatly qualify any findings:
Assumption 1: Geology is a closed system. A similar problem exists for the Klimat Cult. The earth is not a closed system, and neither is its geology. This is a big problem. How would anyone know if there has there been contamination into the rock of either extra amounts of parent or daughter elements? What if extra lead entered the rock (hydrothermal explosion), or contamination occurred affecting lead and uranium?
Assumption 2: The decay rate has not changed. A 100-year sample of decay rates appears to be rather inadequate when talking about millions of years. No one knows if the rate of decay has changed in the past 1.000 or 1.000.000 long age years. To be honest, one should doubt the given and accepted decay rates, since finding confirmation of said rates is very difficult.
Assumption 3: There is no lead in the rock when it is first formed. This does not seem valid, given that hyrdothermally produced lead is found in all 3 rock types. To assume for example, that a rock starts only with uranium and no Pb (lead) is a gross simplification and likely incorrect. (Isochron dating, see below, which relies on multiple rock samples, is an attempt to correct this, but still has underlying assumptions based on 1 and 2 above.) More here
Carbon 14 dating is used as ‘scientific and consensus proof’ that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and various ‘fossils’ found in our geological strate are ‘millions of years’ in age. 14C dating is probably the foundation stone for many belief systems around long ages. But a question rarely asked is, ‘how scientific is carbon-14, or 14C dating?’ Given that so much of ‘settled science’ is junk and bunk, how valid are the techniques and assumptions behind this technique which allegedly ‘proves’ Long-Ager theology?
Carbon is the essential and unique element for life on Earth. Carbon is also expressed in charred wood, diamonds, and graphite in ‘lead’ pencils. Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf of a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon.
Carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes (another word for form). One rare form of carbon contains atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, which is also called ‘radiocarbon’. When 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals. This known fact is the premise of the dating technique around carbon-14.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These quick moving displaced neutrons then collide with ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. The most prevalent gas in our atmosphere is nitrogen and the interplay between displaced atomic nuclei and nitrogen gives rise to the element 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing back into nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
The main idea behind 14C dating is to count how many 12C atoms (normal carbon) exist for every 14C atom (radiocarbon), and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. The underlying assumption is that because 14C is inter-mixed with 12C, the ratio is expected to be the same whether the sample is from flora or fauna.
In living creatures, 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N. However, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. When a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living creature decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. Science calls this a ‘clock’. Obviously, 14C dating works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of the amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two half- lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years.
In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects might enable the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. No one denies this.
However, even within historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records. In general, outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C ‘clock’ is not possible and much of dating becomes a game of tautology. An example is that the artefact is found within a strata that ‘must be’ 100 MA, therefore if we date it we should calibrate the result to conform to that date. Pick your method and manipulate the outcome. More here
“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial members of persons over an extended period of time.” Fred Hoyle, astronomer, 1982
The term fossil fuel purportedly dates from the 18th century, probably and rather ironically coined by the Russian Chemistry Professor Lomonosov around 1745. In 1757 Lomonosov presented at the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and included the following pithy description about oil: “Rock oil originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transform into rock oil.” No experiments, observations or proofs were submitted by Lomonosov, but a religious cult was born.
For whatever reason, ‘fossils’ were ‘first’ being discovered in the 18th century tincturing the glasses of academics and seers and ushering in unproven theories about long ages and processes. Such discoveries could be interpreted differently depending on your worldview of course. In the long age paradigm of the ‘Enlightenment’ and the ‘Age of Science’, petroleum was described as an organic substance derived from decomposed tissue which must have been crushed and liquified over extended periods of time. None of this is valid nor has it ever been experimentally proven. Yet today the ‘Science’ references this rather ignorant and unenlightening world view of an 18th century philosophical theory about hydro-carbon energy, without recourse to observational or experimental proof. Why? And what does that say about ‘science’?
Petroleum and gas from ‘fossils’ as a theoretical concept serve a modern purpose. If hydro-carbon energy is limited, or ‘non-renewable’ in the cant of education and the media, then eventually the despised human race will need to move to alternative energy sources, managed by vested interests who accrete money, power or both, from ‘renewable’ implementations.
(The fraudulent 1956 Hubbert Shell Oil Peak Oil fraud. Zero science, zero data validation, all of it long disproven, but still reused by the Peak Oil cult).
If, however, hydrocarbon fuel is manufactured and produced naturally, and will always be plentiful, the business and moral case for ‘alternative energy’ is drastically reduced. To compensate for this inconvenient truth, the Scientism of energy and social control now dramatically declare that burning naturally produced hydrocarbons is ‘dirty’ and a pollution. This is simply untrue. Your wood stove provides an excellent experimental laboratory as to why burning carbon has no impact whatsoever on ‘pollution’, ‘climate’ or Gaia. None. Carbon does not pollute and is not toxic.
The attack on energy reality thus comes from 3 angles of Scientism and its false 18th century inspired-religious dogma:
1-hydrocarbons are subject to the fraudulent ‘peak’ production theories and will run out, with all such forecasts proven ineradicably wrong;
2-burning hydrocarbons is dirty and polluting and;
3-burning hydrocarbons will emit Co2 which deranges the lower atmosphere’s climate and causes warming.
As a litany of religious gospel, the above does rank incredibly low on the critical thinking and reality scales. Evidence indicates that oil and gas reserves are limitless, now exceeding 40 years into the future with more reserves discovered annually. Carbon and Co2 are not toxins, they are amorphous and formless gases, and Co2 benefits the environment as plant food. Co2 is 4 parts per million in the atmosphere and is both endothermic and exothermic with cooling as well as warming properties. At least half of the 50 billion tonnes that humans emit each year globally will be recycled by nature. There are 1 Trillion tonnes of Co2 in the lower and upper atmosphere, so our impact is negligible and in reality, there are so many complex feedback loops within climate which we don’t understand, that it makes a mockery of the climate doom goblins and their fake models.
Abiotic hydrocarbon energy production, as a natural process, occurring at the boundary of the Earth’s core and mantle was discovered by the Russians in the 1930s and 1940s. An impetus for the now demonised Russian state, was energy self-sufficiency and not having to rely on imports from foreign powers, especially during a war. In the 1930s Russian oil production was virtually non-existent. Today Russia is the third largest producer of energy in the world. Russia is an energy behemoth because Russian geologists look for oil where the West dares not.
Russian energy production has doubled from 5-6 million barrels per day in 2000, to 10-12 million barrels per day in 2023, in complete defiance of falsified ‘peak oil theories;’ which are found only in Western discourse. ‘Peak oil’ theory has existed since 1920 and every year there is yet more ‘forecasts’ that energy will peak and decline within the next decade. For 100 years, this has proven to be a lie. Online the researcher will find various ‘Western’ prognostications from ‘experts’, that Russian oil production will soon peak (pick a year) and then sharply decline, imperilling the Russian state. In reality Russian energy output has doubled in 20 years and there is no reason, bar a defeat in war, that it won’t double again in the next 20 years. More here
