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
There is a long list of experiments which have disproven Relativity, which was conceived as an attempt to explain why mechanical experiments could not prove a moving, or even a rotating Earth. These are not discussed, taught, and are largely unknown. One such experiment which the Relativists cannot answer is that of the French physicist Georges Sagnac, and his 1913 interferometer calculations. ‘Modern science’ simply brushes Sagnac under the carpet as they do with any replicable experimentation which disproves Special Relativity. Few Phd’s in Physics have ever heard of Georges Sagnac.
Sagnac was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Paris. He was a Copernican and Sun worshipper. Sagnac is never taught in schools, yet in his day he enjoyed renown. Sagnac assisted Pierre Curie in determining the properties of radium and the discovery of secondary X-rays and various other optical effects. He was part of the scientific establishment and a contemporary of one of France’s top physicists, the Catholic Pierre Duhem, who had the temerity to challenge the ‘consensus’ and whose Catholicism offended the small group of atheists that ran French ‘science’. Duhem was ostracized and sent to the University of Bordeaux and denied access to materials. Free speech, open science and all that. Sagnac suffered no such fate, he was part of ‘The Science’ until he began to question Relativity. More here
The speed of light is a problem for ‘The Science’. If the speed of light is inconstant in space and time, the entire edifice of modern cosmology including ‘Relativity’ is destroyed. Other posts in this substack have adumbrated the issues with the speed of light in the context of what is wrong with modern physics and cosmology. To further understand the importance of this issue we will provide 3 posts: a brief history of the speed of light, the ignored and wrongly vilified Sagnac experiment, and proofs and support as to why the speed of light dogma is incorrect, including personal experiments.
Through many years of study and experimentation with the speed of light, it is clear that the ‘settled consensus’ that the speed of light is ~186.000 miles per second in a vacuum is simply wrong. One obvious reason is that space is not a vacuum but full of material including radiation, rays, neutrinos, positrons, quantum fluctuations and other matter. No vacuum exists within the universe. Einsteins’ own General Relativity assumes an ether. Light speed obviously varies by medium including in space and in the opinion of many cannot even be measured. More here
Darwinism and the religio-poli-cracy of Evolution relies on having faith in the God of Time to take nothing to everything. Microbiology, irreducible complexity, mathematical probability and real science destroy the facile Victorian theology that random chance can generate species transmutation and metamorphosis. No evidence for this exists. Evolution also has nothing to say about the origins of life, or arrival of life forms including the arrival of the ‘fittest’.
Given that real science and maths destroy the simplistic mechanical-materialistic view of Darwinians, they fall back on the God of time. If the universe is 13 billion years old, and the Earth some 4 billion, perhaps the Darwinian faithful intone, given various ‘quantum fluctuations’ merged with electromagnetic energy, suffused with chance and experimentation, the variegated life forms on Earth could have formed.
Is the Darwinian belief in long ages really supported by ‘The Science’? The evidence is certainly unkind to the religion of Evolution.
Even if you believe the cosmos is 4 Trillion-Brazilian years old, there is no mathematical probability that your ~70 trillion cells, with circa 6 feet of DNA coding per cell, or 67 billion miles of DNA per person, formed by chance within even that limitless amount of time. Time is a chimera when it comes to the secular religion of materialism. ‘Time’ can never create the conditions to allow the building of functional and coded design that runs for 67 billion miles in the case of a single human’s DNA, not to mention the endless complexities of flora and fauna species. Yet the ‘long ages’ is all Darwinians have when it comes to their holy Trinity of time, mutations, and chance and even those claims are more propaganda than scientific.
Let’s have a look at long-age ‘dating techniques’. More here
There is a pandemic of fraud within 'Science.
Historically fraud has always existed within ‘Science’. With modern funding, political objectives, modern tools and mediums, the pace of fraud has simply accelerated at an astonishing pace. Historically you can go through any of the icons within Science and be astonished at the mendacity, data fraud, opacity and even violence of the actors.
Einstein for example, was an exemplar at not attributing any of his ideas to others, even though almost all of his ‘discoveries’, no matter how inaccurate and wrong they might have been, were based on the efforts of others. Posts on this substack give very specific examples of this. Einstein of course is not alone in such behaviour and they are just a small sample of the massive fraud plaguing ‘The Science’.
When philosophy, ‘models’ and manufactured ‘data’, replace mechanical-physical experimentation, and when we mix in politics, state funding, state directives, private money, awards, titles and job security, we should expect nothing less than outlandish fraud.
Follow the money and the power to find ‘The Science’. $cience is simply an agglomeration of industries by domain. ‘Independent Science’ does not exist. More here
To any who are upright and sentient, the Corona plan/scam-demic was a test pilot. In Information Technology we initiate such pilots to test the applicability of technology to resolve a business issue. The Corona Medical Nazism piloted the public’s (aka the sheeple’s), reaction to lockdowns, mandatory face diapers, and forced stabbinations. All to ward off a fake flying virus which purportedly emanated from a bat in Wuhan.
The CIA-DoD-Pharma coup and the various actors and masters involved, must have been very pleased with the unexpected and enthusiastic level of compliance, hysteria and outright fascistic beliefs held by the sheeple. Given such success why wouldn’t they try it again? It appears that the globalist-WEF panjandrums are pushing both ‘bird flu’ and ‘monkeypox’, neither of which exists in a ‘viral’ form, as the continuation of Project Fear. The useless WHO, owned by Gates and Pharma, is of course advertising mpox as a global contagion.
Keep in mind that according to the UK Health Security Agency (CDC equivalent in the UK), the ‘monkeypox virus’ is so similar to the ‘smallpox virus’ that a single quackcine can remediate both. Supposedly the mpox is indistinguishable from ‘smallpox’. How can two ‘viruses’ make ‘diseases’ whose symptoms are remarkably similar? When I asked under FOI to provide proof of the pox virus they of course declined to provide any. How can you make a quackcine if you don’t have an isolated pathogen?
Here is a quick look at the non-science around ‘monkeypox’. More here
Monkeys to Men, in just 5 or 6 million years! Apes supposedly ‘evolved’ some 40 million years ago from the magic lab of ‘Evolution’. About 5-6 million years ago a fork from the ape genus developed and eventually ‘evolved’ to become the distinct Homo Sapiens species some 100.000 to 200.000 years ago. ‘Settled science’, everyone knows, teacher say, BBC say.
The difference between Humans and apes or chimps, or between wolves which pace ‘The Science’ apparently ‘evolved’ into whales, runs into the many billions of DNA letters. This simplistic view of massive complexity and design is astounding. There is no direct path from the simple to the complex.
In science the opposite is true. There is route of decomposition from the complex to the simple, as organisms decay and entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes hold. Simple parts do not unite through a materialist process, to form the complex whole. There is no evidence that this can happen with individuals or species, nor within components of individuals. A bacterium’s flagella for example, or the human brain, are not formed in pieces, parts or over time. It is all or nothing. More here
====
“The greatest kindess one can render for any man is to lead him to the truth.” St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin. “The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.” (Interview Origins and Design 17:2)
Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not ‘progress’. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. No entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man. More here
===
R. F. Shedinger has written a very interesting book on aspects of Darwin’s life and philosophy that most people are unaware of. In schools and the mainstream (fake news) media, you get the usual hagiography, much as you do with quacks and criminals such as Jenner or Pasteur, or the anti-reality philosophers like Einstein. Maybe it is time that people had a critical look at the theology of Darwinism and its utter paucity of proofs or logic. There is nothing scientific about evolution.
There are many frauds in the history of science. God-like status has been given to many men, who were plagiarisers, liars, cheats, con-artists, second-rate philosophers, quacks and who provided no mechanical-objective-replicable proof for their ideas. Many if not most famous scientists including Galileo, Newton, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and Darwin all belong within this spectrum to some extent, to name but a favoured few. Aspects of some of their work might be scientific or relevant, but much of what is accepted as ‘science’ is simply gibberish. More here
According to ‘The Science’ and the geniuses that are ‘experts’, the following is true:
Real World Logic
UK HSA
I worked at the UK Health Security Agency, the equivalent of the CDC in the US. I worked on Corona Reporting as a Data Architect. The HSA is an Orwellian bureaucratic and deluded institution. The Corona data, the death data, the ‘cases’ data, were simply junk. The ‘data lake’ was befouled by more than 100 systems of data sewage. No common data models, no data quality management, and no verification of the data being used. I can assure anyone that the Corona reporting data given to the UK Parliament and the Fake News was rubbish.
Questions to the HSA
I had 2 very simple questions to the charlatans at the HSA. First, where is the Bovine ‘orthopox virus’? Cows exist, ergo the virus must still exist. Second, where in the UK is there a sample, purified and isolated, of the smallpox ‘variola virus’. The HSA does not have a record of either. Neither exists. Yet they were preparing a quackcine for smallpox/monkeypox not long ago. A quack potion against what?
The non-reply:
They refer you to the criminals at the WHO. Photos of ‘technicians’ in space suits impresses the web site visitor with the danger and nuclear-radiative potential of ‘smallpox variola’. I have also asked the WHO for proof. None was given. I will ask again.
More here
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.” Voltaire in "The Age of Louis XIV", 1751.
Evolution is a philosophical enterprise premised on ‘natural selection’, mutations, time and materialism. Evolution as the only default answer for any biological process, explains precisely nothing. As with ‘climate change’, any activity or result is due to ‘evolution’. It cannot of course explain the creation of life, our world, or why there are 2 million species with such finely tuned and wonderfully designed systems.
Darwin’s word salads explain everything and therefore mean nothing:
Did the organism flourish? It was naturally selected of course, given its ‘competitive advantages’.
Did it die out? It was selected to expire and become extinct. It was ‘uncompetitive’.
Did that species thrive and conquer its competitors? It possessed competitive advantages due to mutations and genetic allele shuffling.
Did that species go extinct? It was not competitive enough and the functional accretions of allele shuffling failed in comparison to its competitors.
Why does that fossil body plan exactly ressemble the same creature today? Due to punctuated equilibrium there was a sudden change in structure but given that it was perfectly adapted there ensued stasis and equilibrium. Trust us, this fossil is 14 billion, trillion, brazilian years old.
No facts, no mechanical proofs, just rhetoric. Harvard’s Richard Lewontin (an atheist, materialist) once wrote:
“the theory (Darwinism) becomes a vacuous exercise in formal logic that has no points of contact with the contingent world. The theory explains nothing because it explains everything.”
Lewontin is spot on.
As Karl Popper and others have pointed out, a valid hypothesis can be tested and disproven. This is impossible with the Darwin religion. Any output, any observation, any fossil, any gap, any biological development or non-development, is supportive of its religious tenets.
If you ask a Darwinian “how did the human brain ‘evolve’?”, the answer from the religious acolyte will be something along these lines:
‘we don’t know exactly how the brain ‘evolved’, but obviously the bacteria to human ‘evolution’ over time, occurred through simple, single functional accretions, driven by natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations which produced a random aggregation of atoms and material to make the brain possible. The brain exists. Therefore, evolution is true.’
The Darwinian explanation for any biological process is devoid of science and pregnant with rhetoric, tautology, unproven claims and nonsense.
None of the above postulations which you find in any evolutionary discourse, is based on science, mathematical probability, logic, observation or common sense. Therefore, it is simply anti-science to state that bacteria became Bach. Bacteria never change. Bacteria will always remain bacteria and revert back to a mean.
“To suppose that the eye….could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin in Origins (who then goes on to try to explain the absurdity and fails).
In Tom Bethell’s book,
‘Darwin’s House of Cards’, he summarises the current definition of what natural selection means in Darwinian terms:
‘What do we really know about natural selection? To summarize the current view: As a source of innovation, mutations in the DNA molecule generate random variations, and natural selection then acts as a filtering device. “Unfit” variants rarely survive even the early stages of development. As a matter of observation, then, what we find when organisms reproduce is that descendants incorporate small changes. Offspring differ a little from their parents, and their offspring differ even more from their grandparents. And so on. So the reproduction that we see is imperfect. All die in the end, but some variant forms contrive to leave more offspring than others.’
So what do the ‘small changes’ in offspring mean scientifically? Do they lead to metamorphosis, new structures, new software programming (genes, DNA, RNA)? The answer is they do not.
Since the time of Darwin and his invocation of ‘natural selection’, ‘the science’ believes that unseen forces and selective agents will add changes to the genomic structure of animals and species. This will give animals a ‘competitive advantage’ over their peers and ‘rivals’. Over long periods of time, these changes will form new animals and species, ‘adapted’ to their environment. You are fit therefore you survive.
This theory is of course utter nonsense.
One could rightly ask for example, where are these new species? It is obvious that there are means or averages. Humans are bound by their software, genomic structure and by reproduction. You don’t mate with a tulip or a tiger. Cats mate with cats. Dogs mate with dogs or other canines including foxes. Bears with those of the same kind. A cat cannot mate with a pigeon and will not add pigeon software to its own software.
More here
Beguiled by experts and ‘The Science’, impressed by long monographs and poetic constructions, fooled by allegories and metaphors, I used to belong to the religion of atheo-agnosticism including its metaphysical foundation, ‘Evolution’. This mechanical materialism, which has existed in various forms for some 3000 years, is now accepted as the basis of ‘biology’. The world is much poorer for this rather ignorant belief. Real science has been retarded and discarded since the days of the fraud and non-scientist, Darwin.
Having spent 25 years within ‘The Science’ in physics, cosmology, general sciences and then IT, including application building and creating data platforms, I have become intimately acquainted with the differences that exist between mechanical, binary-proofs (objective reality) and that of abstract explanations disconnected from objective proofs (subjective philosophy). Identifying philosophical and scientific fraud is not that difficult when you know where to look. The religion of Darwin is rife with fraud. Entire books have been written on the subject.
Within this journey some 15 years were spent evaluating ‘Evolution’ as a ‘science’ including performing long term experiments (bacteria, flies). When no proof could be found, it was the beginning of my personal apostasy away from one of the great lies in ‘science’. Even long ages were found to be largely falsified (more later on why this is probably true, though there is a difference between space time and Earth time). Such beliefs are of course anathema in the age of ‘The Science’ which is a byproduct of ‘The Enlightenment’ and the ‘monism’ of ‘reason’. Surely anyone born before 1640 was ignorant and stupid. Only the ‘modern’ is clever and informed.
Didn’t the Corona plandemic prove how intelligent the modern is, confirming the ‘natural selection’ of the ‘fittest’ and ‘best’? Or did you notice the obvious clanking reality that you are not surrounded by the ‘fittest’?
This is a fairly short post is the first of a few on why ‘Evolution’ is false and is not a science. There are 3 main domains where Darwinian theology fails and fails badly: chemical evolution, mutations and ‘natural selection’. This post will summarise why these areas prove that evolution is not a science. I will follow up with more details in subsequent posts.
By ‘Evolution’ I mean the nothing-to-you theory of metamorphosis. Bacteria to humans, fish to reptiles and reptiles to birds, algae to alligators, prawns to professors. I do not mean differences in individuals including different sized finch beaks. None of these are proof of anything.
Domain 1: Chemical Evolution
Life does not form from non-life. That is a scientific ‘law’. Darwinism at its core is based on abiogenesis. Logically this means that the edifice of Darwinian theology whether you call it neo-Darwinism or some other name, is false. We know that:
-Spontaneous generation has been disproven many times dating from the early 17th century (Harvey, Redi, Spallanzani, even that quack Pasteur).
-Animate life cannot be formed from the inanimate. You can try this yourself at home.
Darwin believed in abiogenesis, philosophising that spontaneous generation would be proven by some future ‘natural law’ yet to be discovered (like dark matter, dark energy). We know that:
-Chemical evolution is a chimera like abiogenesis. No proof, no experiment, no observation has even come close to demonstrating the enormous complexity of life arising from non-life, not even a single cell, nor a single protein arrangement, let alone DNA or RNA has been manufactured ex-nihilo.
-The failed 1954 Miller-Urey experiment conducted in a human designed and contrived lab environment produced a few dead amino acids. Life cannot arise out of simple electrified compounds, in either a lab or Darwin’s warm soupy pond. Contaminants and oxygen, which degrade DNA, RNA, and a million other issues are apparent with such a simplistic approach to the incredible complexity of organisms.
Chemical evolutionists cannot produce, even in designed labs, proteins ex-nihilo. No proteins, no you. The average coded protein contains some 150-500 amino acids with left-handed chirality. The human body possesses many thousands of proteins and enzymes (exact number is unknown). For a protein with a chain of 500 amino acids the number of possible linear arrangements is 20300 or 10650. There are 1080 atoms in the universe. 1 chance in 1050 is considered impossible. There is no mathematical possibility of producing even a single protein by ‘chance’ in nature, in a warm soupy pond near Darwin’s Sussex home. None.
Domain 2: Mutations
Most mutations are neutral or destructive, they don’t add functional value. Humans generate about 30-50 mutations or negative coding errors every generation. At some point in time these mutational loads will mean extinction. As with software systems you don’t need 100% degradation to cause system dysfunction and inoperability. This means that devolution, not evolution is our reality.
We know that:
· 3 % of DNA or 6 inches of the 6 feet of DNA you have in each cell, is coding. 97% is control and administration. There is no junk DNA, another chimera long disproven.
· Sexual reproduction slows down mutations by recombining DNA and slowing down the development of mutational loads. Darwinists cannot explain sex nor reproduction.
· -In large scale experiments with bacteria and viruses, researchers found that even over 30 years of breeding these creatures did not ‘evolve’ but fluctuated at best around a species mean or degraded and lost functionality. Engineering ‘new species’ has led to functional issues and disability, not ‘evolving’ improvements or a new body type.
We know that mutations are the major cause of diseases including heart diseases and cancers. More than 17,000 diseases are now listed, up from 1,500 in 1966. In my opinion the mass ingestion of toxins including ‘vaccines’, poor diets etc are largely to blame and these toxins are causing massive cellular mutations in our bodies.
Domain 3: Natural Selection
The word-salad of ‘natural selection’ is still acknowledged as the main contribution of Darwin to evolutionary theory but was in fact a very ancient idea, which Darwin popularised by using Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe a dialectical process of species development. Like Einstein, Pasteur and many others, Darwin never bothered to attribute his plagiarised material to others.
Natural selection does not exist and should not be conflated with ‘adaptation’ which every creature possesses in their operating system and code. Nature does not select anything and is an indifferent, impersonal and cold entity. You can find out yourself by running naked to the closest woods and attempting to survive. Your chance of survival will depend as much on luck as on your ‘traits’. Nature could care less if you live or die. It is not your ‘mother’.
We know that the white fur colouring of a polar bear, which is a close relative of the brown bear, does not mean that the polar bear ‘evolved’, it simply means that its existing genetic traits ‘adapted’ to its environment. It has nothing to do with ‘survival’ of the ‘fittest’. Polar bears can and do mate with black and grizzly bears. All of them are still ‘bears’.
We know that:
· Darwin applied human breeding techniques to nature and gave ‘natural selection’ the role of nature’s breeder.
· Darwin could not explain the ‘arrival of the fittest’, or the origins of any species.
· Darwin retreated to the discredited theories of Lamarck which postulated that biological characteristics acquired during a lifetime are passed on to the offspring (an entirely absurd idea, for example a weightlifter passing muscle size to his children).
· There are obviously clear limits for each species to size, weight, speed, height and other characteristics. Darwin believed in unlimited variation and combination. Animals only procreate within their own species and within defined limits. Horses cannot be bred to grow wings for example.
· Survival of the fittest does not mean ‘progress’, since it conserves what is known and is best described as the culling of the sick, ill and old (disease, still births, age, bad luck, competition, predators).
· Clearly good luck and happenstance are as important in survival as being ‘fit’ which cannot and is never defined (how is a sloth fit?).
· Fossils do not support macro-evolution, and there are no missing links.
Bottom Line
Evolution and Darwinism is not a ‘science’ but a philosophy and an approach to historical biology. None of the ideas from the 19th century or 20th century are particularly novel or unique. One can read them in Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Paracelsus and even Descartes. Evolution has a long history and pedigree of being ineffably wrong, unscientific and an obstacle to real scientific progress.
The only peg left for Evolutionists to hang their hat on is the god of time. And that god is also false. Even with unlimited time, not a single protein in your body, nor a single cell within the 70 trillion cell complexity you possess, could form by ‘chance’ in nature.
$cientism. Darwinian theology is saturated with money. Within biology or science at large you won’t get published, or get tenure or a professorship, or keep your media talking points career if you offend the Darwinian deep state.
Some sources you shouldn’t read:
· Ferrell, Vance, ‘Evolution handbook’
· Bethell, Tom, ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’
· Bergman, J. ‘The Three Pillars of Evolution Demolished’
· Denton, M., ‘The miracle of Man’
· Denton, M. ‘The miracle of the cell’
· Behe, M. ‘Darwin Devolves’.
· Milton, R. ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism’
And dozens of others I could list.