RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

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:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Archive - May 2016

Dr Willie Soon mocks Bill Nye the materialist and science fiction guy along with GlobaloneyWarming

No science to the cult of the Warm. Just a whole lot of stupid.

Bookmark and Share



Bill Nye and his materialist theology about 'Warming' and Plant Food have no connection to science. None. He is the science-fiction, or scientism, 'guy', a prophet of fairy tales, innuendo, false hoods and deceit. Science does not exist. It is metaphysics, especially when you analyze the claims of Evolution [pond scum, became you]; or Plant-Food-causes-climate.
The article below is excerpted from CFACT and a real scientist who dares to challenge the government-funded debacle that has become science-fiction. The points made are 'scientific' and destroy the cult of warming, the Green Nazi theology that 'carbon energy' will kill Gaia, and reveals the warming theology to be a brain dead liturgy of regurgitated lies.
To wit:
-If you burnt all fossil fuels today, Co2 as a % of atmospheric gas by weight would rise to 8/100 x 1 % or a rounding error.
-On Venus, with its 1000 F surface temperature, Co2 is 98% atmospheric gas by weight, on Mars with -60 F surface temperature, it is 95 %
-The so-called 'Greenhouse effect' lies entirely within a complex, not yet understood convection system and there is no correlation between Co2 and temperatures
-Co2 was much higher in past eras and life flourished
-Co2 is necessary for life, and 70% of oxygen comes from plankton converting Co2 into O2
-None of the hysterical climate fraud claims [Arctic will melt by 2014, 2 billion climate refugees etc]; have come true
-None of the climate models used by the media to promote the hysteria are remotely accurate
Dr. Willie Soon is an independent scientist who has been studying the Sun and Earth’s climate for 26 years. Dr. István Markó is a professor of chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and director of the Organic and Medicinal Chemistry Laboratory. See more at:
True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.
…..In the realm of climate scientism, the rule seems to be this: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents. That’s certainly what self-styled global warming “experts” like Al Gore and Bill Nye are doing. Rather than debating scientists who don’t accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly:
Our theory explains everything that’s happening. Hotter or colder temperatures, wetter or drier weather, less ice in the Arctic, more ice in Antarctica – it’s all due to fossil fuel use.
Climate scientism aggressively misrepresents facts, refuses to discuss energy and climate issues with anyone who points out massive flaws in the man-made climate chaos hypothesis, bullies anyone who won’t condemn carbon dioxide, and brands them as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.
They may also encounter other revelations: That climate science is still young and anything but settled; that we have little understanding of what caused major ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods in between, and numerous other events throughout the ages; and that computer model predictions thus far have been little better than tarot card divinations.
Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.
The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as CO2 levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.
...Mr. Nye and the popular media love to tell us that CO2 from oil, gas and coal could soon turn Planet Earth into another Venus: over-heated, barren, rocky and lifeless. Princeton Institute of Advanced Study Professors Freeman Dyson and Will Happer show that this is utter nonsense.
For one thing, Venus is far closer to the sun, so it is subjected to far more solar heat, gravitational pull, and surface pressure than Earth is. “If we put a sunshade shielding Venus from sunlight,” Dr. Dyson notes, “it would only take 500 years for its surface to cool down and its atmosphere to condense into a carbon dioxide ocean.” It’s not the high temperature that makes Venus permanently unfriendly to life, he adds; it’s the lack of water.
Second, the amounts of atmospheric CO2 are grossly disproportionate. Earth has barely 0.04% CO2 (by volume) in its atmosphere, whereas Venus has 97% CO2 and Mars has 95% CO2. Mars much greater distance from the sun also means it has an average surface temperature of -60°C (-80°F) –underscoring yet again how absurd it is to use planetary comparisons to stoke climate change fears.
Third, Earth’s atmosphere used to contain far more CO2. “For most of the past 550 million years of the Phanerozoic, when multicellular life left a good fossil record, the earth’s CO2 levels were four times, even ten times, higher than now,” Dr. Happer points out. “Yet life flourished on land and in the oceans. Earth never came close to the conditions of Venus.” And it never will.
Fourth, Venus’s much closer proximity to the sun means it receives about twice as much solar flux (radiant energy)as the Earth does: 2637 Watts per square meter versus 1367, Happer explains. The IPCC says doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be equivalent to just 15 W/m2 of additional solar flux. That’s nearly 100 times less than what Venus gets from being closer to the Sun.
Fifth, surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of the Earth, and strong convection forces increase the heating of surface air, he continues, making Venus’s surface even hotter. However, dense sulfuric acid clouds prevent most solar heat from ever reaching the planet’s surface. Instead, they reflect most sunlight back into space, which is “one of the reasons Venus is such a lovely morning or evening ‘star.’”
Of course, none of these nerdy details about Earth-Venus differences really matter. We already know plant life on Planet Earth loved the higher CO2 levels that prevailed during the Carboniferous Age and other times when plants enjoyed extraordinary growth.
However, even burning all the economically available fossil fuels would not likely even double current atmospheric CO2 levels – to just 0.08% CO2, compared to 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, 0.9% argon, and 0.1% for all other gases except water vapor. And doubling CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.
Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for plant growth – and for all life on Earth. Volumes of research clearly demonstrate that crop, garden, forest, grassland, and ocean plants want more CO2, not less. The increased greening of our Earth over the past 30 years testifies to the desperate need of plants for this most fundamental fertilizer. The more CO2 they get, the better and faster they grow.
More than 70% of the oxygen present in the atmosphere – and without which we could never live – originates from phytoplankton absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen. Keep this in mind when Bill Nye The Junk Science Guy tells you CO2 is bad for our oceans and climate.

Evolution, no positive mutations can be identified, so that makes it all about science....

Story telling and fables.

Bookmark and Share


Evolution is not about science. It is about dogma, story-telling, grant money, power, privilege, sustaining an atheist-naturalist world view [the Nazis also promoted such a world-view]; and often times hatred of the human [evolved pond scum are not special, according to most of within Darwin's cult].


Abiogenesis, nothing created everything, information ordered syntactically in a complexity that baffles....these and a million other objectives exist to Evolution. But they are never taught, discussed, or debated. Naturalism which most atheists in the main support; is the theology of both the state and the education systems. If you are against naturalism, and abiogenesis, or random chance mutations taking a tulip and creating a teacher; than you are anti-science – so say the zealots from the Church of Darwin.


The Holy Trinity Church of chance, time and mutations [which only degrade and do not improve, eg 4.000 diseases]; claims everything supports evolution. Ask an evolutionist for evidence of positive mutations in the real world – something concrete. You won't get an answer, just hand-waving. Any evidence which contradicts evolution is magically co-opted to support it. Soft Dino tissue, which can't be more than a few thousand years old, is magically mixed with iron and the cult intones that yes indeed, soft tissue will last 78 million years.


In this vein we have the following oxymorons, with a heavy emphasis on the last part of the word;


-Evolution design

-Evolution engineering

-Directed Evolution


So a random chance process based on mythical natural selection [selecting from what, how and why ?]; is now turned into purposeful engineering.....mindboggling. Who or what exactly is doing the design ?


'Natural selection is so misleading a term, Darwin later chose “survival of the fittest” as closer to what he meant. Some evolutionists picture the environment as a selector. Others view survival as a selector. These are both logical fallacies. Neither the environment or survival can select, because neither has foresight, mind, or goals. Whatever happens, nobody cares. Norman Macbeth wrote in 1971, “A process that operates invisibly, with an intensity that cannot be observed and with no ability to explain specific problems, an impersonal process that is continually given personal qualities—this sets my teeth on edge” (Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, p. 46).'


How can chaos select ? Why would a gene 'select' to mutate [which 99.9% is either negative or neutral] to 'survive' ? Why would a scale want to turn into a feather, or a lemur into a hominid ? How would the environment drive an antelope to become a giraffe ? Wouldn't the antelope just be happy being an antelope ?


Evolution is all rhetoric and no reality. You can't design something artificially in a lab, and then declare that 'natural processes' somehow did the designing. Where is the natural soupy pond full of chemicals waiting to be electrocuted and turned into complex cellular creatures ? Why would a single cell bacteria want to 'naturally select' to become a baboon ?


Junk science is heavy on the junk, light on the science.




Ending cash - easier to wipe out real currency values with negative rates, spending

End cash and have only a digital medium of exchange would benefit governments

Bookmark and Share
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
'It’s not simply an argument of the above government rationale versus that of privacy and anonymity. Perhaps the least talked-about implication of a cashless society is the way that it could potentially empower central banking to have more ammunition in “smoothing” out the way people save and spend money.


By eliminating the prospect of cash savings, monetary policy options like negative interest rates would be much more effective if implemented. All money would presumably be stored under the same banking system umbrella, and even the most prudent savers could be taxed with negative rates to encourage consumer spending.


While there are certainly benefits to using digital payments, our view is that going digital should be an individual consumer choice that can be based on personal benefits and drawbacks. People should have the voluntary choice of going plastic or using apps for payment, but they shouldn’t be pushed into either option unwillingly.


Forced banishment of cash is a completely different thing, and we should be increasingly wary and suspicious of the real rationale behind such a scheme.'

George Adams and the cultural genius of Christianity

Christianity formed and shaped all of the foundations of the modern world

Bookmark and Share



It is refreshing, indeed mandatory, to read common sense and real perspectives from the past. Out of the dark and gloom of the modern era of 'scientism' [abiogensis, plant food causes climate, panspermia, life on dead rocks, algae became Achmed etc.]; and into the light of learning. In a culture which praises transgendered bathrooms and applauds a bronze age moon cult as enlightened, it is difficult to understand where civilization came from and why it formed. There is no 'evolution' of civilization to use the modern world's unscientific obsession. Civilization, as with life, art or any material substance, is designed, built, constructed and managed. It can be torn down, just as easily as it can be created.


Adams makes important notes on Christianity's seminal impact on Western Civilization, a metaphysics unlike any which had preceded it in the pagan world:


"Christianity taught also the equality of all men in the sight of God. It taught this not merely as an abstract idea. Stoicism had done that. But in the early Christianity, at least, it put the idea into practice so far as it was possible to do so. The master was held to treat his slave as a brother. They both stood on the same footing within the church, and its offices and dignities were open to both alike. ...instances are not uncommon of men from the lowest classes rising to positions in the church of the highest rank. The teaching of the church always kept before men the idea of the equality in moral rights and in final destiny of all men. That it was the chiefly effective force in establishing practical equality, so far as it has been established, can hardly be asserted."


Equality of men, leads to the equality of rights, freedom of speech and due process, between all men, and over time, women. The universal ethics of Christianity, demanded a universal creed in which all men had to be treated equally, fairly and justly.


"Christianity also taught, as a necessary result of the Christian conception of the relation between God and man, that religion has a direct practical mission as an ethical teacher and help. This was a new and most important step in advance. The ancient national religions had made no ethical demand of the worshipper. The character attributed to the gods could not be helpful to any man. The pagan priest had never looked upon himself as a teacher of morals, or conceived of any reformatory mission for his religion. The Greek or Roman in need of ethical aid and comfort sought the philosopher and not the priest. This whole condition of things Christianity revolutionized. The pure ideal of character which it held aloft in its conception of God, its clear assertion of the necessity and the possibility of such a character for every man which it made in the gospel narrative, created an intimate bond between religion and ethics unknown before. The religious life which Christianity aimed to create in the individual must of necessity express itself in right conduct. This was its true fruit, its external test, and to perfect this the energy of the new religion was especially directed."


Even when acting badly, and Christians have a long history of that, as does most any man or woman today; the ideal does not perish. The character of faith should imbue all action. God is not unknowable or untouchable. He is a part of each person and of the world around us.


...[the] fatherhood of God, typified and proclaimed in an extremely effective form in the sonship of Christ, man’s elder brother, brought man near to God and gave him a new point of view for all the future. Love became the great religious force of the new age. In the practical working of Christianity this idea did not remain a mere idea. It was transformed into a positive force in history through the keen conception which the individual Christian had of the immediate personal relationship between himself and God, by virtue of which the power of the Almighty would come to his aid in his endeavor to make himself like God. In other words, Christianity not merely taught that this relationship was an ideal possibility, but it made men believe it as a fact, so that they actually lived with a sense of the divine power in them."


Animated by equality, opportunity, joy, morality, a strong character, always trying to stay ahead and deny the baser impulses and true demerits we all possess including free will and our poor choices [sin]; Christianity galvanized and demanded action. Help to the poor, the needy; protection of the old, young, infirm and innocent. A conscious desire to do good and to be active in this life, to try to live a good, not a crude life and to participate in society in order to effect good works for the next life if grace grants us that. A commitment to life, family, beauty, reality and proper conduct. We all far short. But those attributes are what created the modern world. Christianity created that culture.





Evolution fails basic math and biochemistry

Time, chance and random mutations would produce exactly nothing

Bookmark and Share


The non-science of Evolution and neo-Darwinian cant.  According to Atheists [yes most Atheists but not all, are ardent members of the Darwin cult]; Evolution is a ‘science’, even though it has never offered up a scientific and rational explication of the following:


-Abiogenesis is impossible, so how and why would dead matter give rise to life?

-Obvious design in all living creatures

-Obvious over-design of flora and fauna, far beyond the minimal requirements of ‘survival of the fittest’

-Perfect ratios in scientific laws, material formation and in chemical formation

-A microbe becoming man and adding 100 Trillion cells of complex information and complete processes, a process never observed nor replicated

-The formation by accident of a single cell, complete with DNA, RNA, cytoplasm, protoplasm, a nucleus, cellular wall etc

-Statistical impossibility of a cell or any of its components arising by natural chance, variation or magic processes 

-Protein formation from 20 amino acids, into average string lengths of 300, held together by peptide bonds, with specified information and structure, is by itself as process, impossible to occur through random chance.


Evolutionists fail basic math.  Your average protein has no chance whatsoever of being formed by random chaos.  NONE.


*300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20) 300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390

*You need to search for the right combination of the 300 amino acids to add the specified information necessary for it to function.  There is not enough time in the Darwinian universe for this to occur. 


Evolutionists always come up with some tortured math to justify the chance that 10 to the power of 390 is possible.  Even if they lie and flail the data enough to bring the chance down to 10 to the power of 40 it is still impossible.  There are only 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the universe.


Just based on simple math and bio-chemistry, Evolution is an epic fail.


Evolutionist Hubert P. Yockey in his seminal work; "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Bio-genesis by Information Theory," in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, V. 67, 1977, on p. 398 describes the absolute impossibility of complex information systems, which all beings contain, and which informs life; arising by chance.  He called this belief a ‘faith’:


One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”


Another evolutionist stated the obvious about the ridiculous notion that time acting on natural processes would account for the beginning, and then the complexity of life forms:


I believed we developed this practice (i.e., of postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero… When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled.” Peter T. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems (Sydney Fox, Editor, New York, Academic Press, 1965), p. 45. 


Atheists who strut around pronouncing their natural theology and eschatology as science, should maybe read about Pasteur’s experiments which destroyed abiogenesis:

Louis Pasteur delivered at the “Sorbonne Scientific Soiree” of April 7, 1864:


No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid.


Pasteur – a devout Catholic – is one the greatest scientists and medical inventors in history.  And no, he did not have the Pretty Happy Dude Phd, and no he did not follow the establishment who calumnied, attacked, and violently opposed much of Pasteur’s work [as the ‘scientific’ establishment did to both Kepler and Copernicus].


By default, Evolution supports abiogenesis.  Even if the lying Atheist professes to abhor the idea that dead matter created himself, he or she still cannot explain how single cells formed, how DNA and RNA which are mutually necessary would have arrived by random chance to exist, full of information at precisely the same time, or on a meta level, how scales, bones, organs, the brain, sight and reproduction of one reptile would change into a bird, at precisely the same moment that a female reptile went through the same metamorphosis.


Instead of playing word games, and using fairy tales to sell their religion, maybe Atheists and Evolutionists need to do some real science.



Not one single experiment or observation proves Evolution, abiogenesis, or life from chance

Where is the PROOF?

Bookmark and Share



Richard Dawkins, a non scientist, metaphysician and rhetorician [where exactly are his 'experiment's proving lemurs became humans ?]; admitted that life originating by chance was impossible: “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …” [in the God Delusion, p. 138, maybe he needs to write an autobiography entiteld the Dawkins Delusion and its Raving mad Rhetoric....]


A single billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. It is quite impossible. However Dawkins is wrong, he underestimates the improbability of life from dead matter, or for that matter, the arrangement of proteins through luck and chaos. The average protein length is 150 to 200 or so amino acids, wired together with specified information and functionality. There are 300 amino acids to choose from, with 20 being the most commonly used.


The probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). 20260 is more atoms than exist in the universe. Even if the entire universe was filled with nothing but amino acids, you would not form one single protein – ever.


But for the math-challenged cult of Evolution it gets worse. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell, specifically a manufacturing process involving DNA [the software], RNA, and Ribosomes. All are needed to be present together. All are interdependent. Consider:


  • The average human gene consists of 3000 nucleotide bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases [how did this complexity form by chaos or 'selection', selecting from what ?]

  • The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000 [show one experiment where one gene was 'created' from mutations and chaos ?]

  • The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs ! [3 billion by chance ?]

  • The arrangement of all proteins in a cell is called a proteome, which changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts. [How did this arise by time and mutations ?]

  • Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function. It may be as high as 10 million [we don't know for sure].


Evolution has not proven that the above factors appeared together by chance, working and functioning in complete harmony. In fact Evolution has nothing to say about any of the constituent components be it DNA, or proteomes, or amino acids, let alone the complex entirety of the composition. Evolution has no explanation at all, of how dead matter, or 'nothing', would have created this vast inter-related nano world of technological prowess. Not one single experiment, observation or even common sense proof is offered. Nothing.



Science fiction is not science. Neither is Evolution which offends basic mathematical and bio-chemical laws. 


The cult and unholy church of 'Science'. Lies, fraud, propaganda, and of course money and power.

A dark age.

Bookmark and Share



William Wilson on the fraud which has destroyed the credibility of 'science'.


Wilson on a huge Open Science collaboration project which investigated the claims of 'science'. It found massive fraud. Globaloneywarming [trace chemical called plant food causes a non existing greenhouse effect and the end of the world], is just one example of this cult's mendacity and ignorance. All funded by the State.


Data Fraud is not science.

Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.


And it is not just in psychology, or 'social sciences' [what is a science of society anyways?]:

But the problem isn’t just with psychology. There’s an ­unspoken rule in the pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate.


Most hypotheses and studies are falsified:

Since the majority of all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no findings. When tallies are actually made, though, the precise opposite turns out to be true: Nearly every published scientific article reports the presence of an association. There must be massive bias at work.


Data fraud abounds:

Many forms of statistical falsification are devilishly difficult to catch, or close enough to a genuine judgment call to provide plausible deniability. Data analysis is very much an art, and one that affords even its most scrupulous practitioners a wide degree of latitude. Which of these two statistical tests, both applicable to this situation, should be used? Should a subpopulation of the research sample with some common criterion be picked out and reanalyzed as if it were the totality? Which of the hundreds of coincident factors measured should be controlled for, and how? The same freedom that empowers a statistician to pick a true signal out of the noise also enables a dishonest scientist to manufacture nearly any result he or she wishes.


Fraud in Physics, remember BICEP and 'gravitational waves' ?

Far more common is the delicate and subtle art of scouring inconceivably vast volumes of noise with advanced software and mathematical tools in search of the faintest signal of some hypothesized but never before observed phenomenon, whether an astrophysical event or the decay of a subatomic particle. This sort of work is difficult and beautiful in its own way, but it is not at all self-evident in the manner of a falling apple or an elliptical planetary orbit, and it is very sensitive to the same sorts of accidental contamination, deliberate fraud, and unconscious bias as the medical and social-scientific studies we have discussed. Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years—the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border—have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.


What peer review ? You mean peer passing [you pass mine, I pass yours....]


prestigious British Medical Journal. The experimenters deliberately modified a paper to include eight different major errors in study design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results, and not a single one of the 221 reviewers who participated caught all of the errors. On average, they caught fewer than two—and, unbelievably, these results held up even in the subset of reviewers who had been specifically warned that they were participating in a study and that there might be something a little odd in the paper that they were reviewing. In all, only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the intentionally flawed paper be rejected.


Reigning cultural paradigms reign, including fraud:


 Older scientists control access to scientific prestige by serving on the editorial boards of major journals and on university tenure-review committees. Finally, the government bodies that award the vast majority of scientific funding are either staffed or advised by distinguished practitioners in the field.


The cult of science:

At the same time as an ever more bloated scientific bureaucracy churns out masses of research results, the majority of which are likely outright false, scientists themselves are lauded as heroes and science is upheld as the only legitimate basis for policy-making. There’s reason to believe that these phenomena are linked. When a formerly ascetic discipline suddenly attains a measure of influence, it is bound to be flooded by opportunists and charlatans, whether it’s the National Academy of Science or the monastery of Cluny.


A cult devoid of real science:

If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance.


What science ?



There is no modern period of 'enlightenment', but an era of charlatans, quacks, frauds and metaphysicians all after money, power and the establishment of their liturgical church uber alles.  

Plato and the Church

Bookmark and Share



Many Greek philosophers and writers proposed world-views which were in harmony with the later historical development of the Christian church. Plato and Aristotle are two obvious examples. Not all of their writings comport with Church theology, but a good amount certainly does. Consider Plato whose ideas were Christianized by Saint Augustine, or melded into Church doctrine to support Catholic theology.


Similarities between Plato and Christianity:


-Rejection of Atheism and Materialism

-Belief in mono-theism

-Design of the physical universe by a creator

-Consciousness after death



Differences between Plato and Christianity:


-Platonic metaphysics is unclear about the nature of the one supreme creator

-Plato is unclear [unlike Christianity] about the nature of reality, proposing 'forms' or the form of 'the good' as the ultimate reality, and the 'Demiurge', or craftsman approach to the formation of the material universe, wherein a lesser divine being was the builder of the natural world, and was subordinate to the ultimate 'good' form.

-Gnostic Christian heresy proposed a Platonic version of Christianity, with the Demiurge [sometimes named Satan], responsible for the material world, and God for the soulful, mindful, 'good'. The two were in opposition.

-Platonic Form and Demiurge are impersonal concepts unlike Christianity which proposes a personal relationship to the Creator.

-Plato believed that souls are indestructible. Christianity believes that God would have command over all souls including their destruction.

-Christianity believes in the resurrected Christ. For Plato the ultimate destination after death was in a disembodied state so he would have rejected the recreation of Christ.



Some Atheists and 'historians' will try to make the claim that Christianity is simply an offshoot of Platonism. This is obviously incorrect. Gnosticism is a Christian heresy and was rejected by the early Church for good reason. Plato's concept of the 'Good' does work within a Christian context, but there are many differences with his metaphysics and that of the Catholic Church.  

Dragons, cultures and reality

Dismissing past accounts is ignorance, not science.

Bookmark and Share



Dragons, renamed 'Dinosaurs' in 1841, did of course exist with humans, and have been a part of human civilization. Every single culture, bar none, discusses Dragons, rampaging large lizards, battles with men, and every single culture has its St. George, its Beowulf, its Dragon on a coat of arms, or in the Zodiac [as with the ancient Chinese]. Every single culture relates winged lizards, depicts and describes in detail a T Rex and relates devilish scenes of carnage wrought by large plesiosaurs in the waters. Dragon stories and pictures of dragons are found all over the world, long before modern scientists took a femur relic and rebuilt an entire sauropod or tetrapod. How can you describe something you have not seen ?


Medieval and ancient literature, including the Old Testament, is littered with references to Dragons. They were the great menace, much like marauding elephants or tigers would be today, or hungry wolves and boars might have been in the early modern period.


See William F. Dankenbring, 'Dinosaurs in Human Times' for a detailed account.


For example Dankenbring's book contains many cultural artefacts from the medieval era in the UK. Stories about men fighting Dragons back to the times of the Romans. In 1405 in Suffolk, England a tale tells:

Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.”

Before the time of Rome and its subjugation of the Britons, there was the tale of a Dragon eating a King in 336 BC:

The menace posed by large rampaging reptiles had been known by the early Britons—one account documents the killing of King Morvidus (Morydd) in circa 336 BC by a reptilian monster which “gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one”.


Dankenbring states that many St. Georges have existed in every cultural history. A famous Scandinavian St. George was Beowulf, who killed the terrible man-eating 'Grendel', a T Rex. Grendels and their namesakes were common in medieval Europe. In England, there is a Grendel-mere, or lake where the Grendels lived. In Denmark and elsewhere, we see the same Grendel appellations given to marshy areas, Grendels were 'marsh walkers' and famous for their stealth and ferocity:


The Danes employed an eotanweard (lit. a giantward, a watcher for monsters), to warn of Grendel’s approach, but often in vain. For so silent was Grendel’s approach when he was hunting in the darkness of the night that sometimes the eotanweard himself was surprised and eaten. On one particular and long-remembered night, no less than thirty Danish warriors were killed by Grendel. Little wonder then that Beowulf was rewarded so richly and was so famed for having slain him.”



Beowulf describes a T Rex and a Pterodactyl. How would the 6th century writers of Beowulf know what a T Rex or a Pterodactyl looked like, unless they had encountered one ? Why would every human culture have a similar tale ? Is there a world-wide conspiracy spread by 'creationists' to propagate a dragon myth? Or is the more sensible conclusion that humans and dragons did indeed co-exist ?