|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
I'm sorry this isn't going to be very well-organized. I'm curious to investigate and explore some of the history of how evolutionism has been and continues to be promoted, particularly by the organizations begun by robber barons. I see the term 'collaborate' as more accurate than conspire. Answers dot com gives 1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort. 2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country. The first definition applies across the board, and the second may also apply to some specific cases. I consider it somewhat unlikely we'll stumble upon any secret plans, and I don't intend to spend much time looking for them. While researching Edwin Hubble's role in advancing evolutionist cosmology, I came upon this: Edwin Hubble of the Carnegie Institution's Mount Wilson Observatory counted 44,000 nebulae in 1283 photographs covering only a small sample of the sky. "Carnagie Institution yet again?" I thought. For everywhere we turn, it's them or Rockefeller or one of the other small handful of elitist organizations. They've been investing in promoting their Darwinist worldviews for quite a long time now. A thread like this is bound to be disorganized, if new discoveries are reported when they come in. For example, while continuing to research Hubble, I found this "Science Service" organizaton. The title "Finding Aids to Personal Papers and Special Collections in the Smithsonian Institution Archives" doesn't begin to tell the story; one must scroll down. It's quite interesting stuff. The activities of the staff and organization were wide-ranging and reflect the breadth of science and scientific concerns during the twentieth century. Slosson and Davis were involved extensively with groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and American Eugenics Society, and the staff writers covered dozens of scientific meetings every year, sometimes serving as officers of those associations. But perhaps that's getting the cart before the horse. Upstream we read The inspiration for such an organization developed during conversations between newspaper publisher E.W. Scripps (1854-1926) and zoologist William E. Ritter (1856-1944), who headed the Scripps-funded oceanographic institute in California. ...
Scripps supplied an initial donation of $30,000 per year from 1921 until his death in 1926. His will placed $500,000 in trust for Science Service and provided a continuing endowment until the trust was dissolved in 1956. Now we're getting somewhere, especially considering E.W. Scripps' opinion: For thirty years and more I have watched and studied the great and popular newspaper, the immediate and the future effect of its teaching. I believe that few people aside from myself have any idea of the tremendous, the almost invincible power and force of the daily press. I am one of those who believe that at least in America the press rules the country; it rules its politics, its religion, its social practice. I believe that if all the newspaper editors of the United States were of one mind on any one matter on what the public ought to do, and if they had the courage of their convictions, it would only be a question of a short time before the nation as a whole would think as these editors think and do that which these editors think it ought to do. To be open and honest, Scripps paid lip service to doing things right when starting up the Science Service "Document A - The American Society for the Dissemination of Science," dictated by E. W. Scripps on March 5, 1919 (see Box 1, Folder 1), declared that the "first aim of this [proposed] institution should be just the reverse of what is called propaganda." Ha ha, very funny. Who could expect for a minute that a media "service" run by an eugenicist would produce anything other than propaganda? Anyhow, it's about time to wrap up the post. Davis, you'll recall, scroll up, or take my word; Davis was also connected with this Sigma Xi group, which was also geared up to promote Hubble's ideas. What ideas? The very ones I set out to investigate. Here's one summary During the 1930s when a relativistic, expanding, homogeneous model of the universe lead to an age for the universe embarrassingly less than the geological age of the earth, the astronomer Edwin Hubble, influenced by philosophical values, persisted in his support for a theory in conflict with observation and prediction. Notwithstanding well attested and unrefutable evidence of geological time, and various astronomical observations as well, the theory of a homogeneous, expanding universe of general relativity proved, in practice, not falsifiable. The philosophical nature of Hubble's argument will be quite demonstrable as soon as I track down a lecture of his I once read. He claimed he saw two valid interpretations of his observations, and one was totally unacceptable, given his preferences.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
The Big Bang is no longer theory, but fact. NASA, NSF, DOE and the California Institute of Technology are collaborating to do more than just assert this one lie. They intend to "prove" the Earth is not unique or unusual, and produce "evidence" of space aliens. Under a sweeping program called "ORIGINS," the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) hope to combine their respective skills and expertise to learn how all objects -- from quarks to quasars, from galaxies to people -- are interrelated. Notice how they've already determined their conclusions? All that remains is to spend money and convince everyone else. TPF will allow us to identify habitable planets like our own Earth around the nearest stars and to assess how common they might be. By combining the sensitivity of space-borne telescopes with the high spatial resolution of an interferometer, TPF will study planets beyond our own solar system in a variety of ways: from their formation and evolution in the disks of newly forming stars to the properties of planets orbiting the nearest stars; from their numbers, sizes, locations, and diversity to their suitability as abodes for life. Using the special technique of interferometric nulling, TPF will be able to reduce the glare of parent stars by a factor of more than one hundred thousand to reveal planetary systems as far away as 15 parsec (pc) or 50 light years. The characterization of the size, temperature, and orbital parameters of entire planetary families, including bodies as small as the Earth in regions where liquid water might be expected to be present, i.e. the "habitable zones", will reveal the full diversity of planetary systems in a way that is only hinted at today. Again, the conclusion is already known. They will "find" Earth-like planets and examine them closely. A real scientist could not be sure what he would see until he had some observations to go on. These people "know" they're going to observe all sorts of stuff, including the formation of stars and planets, specifically Earth-like planets, and "life signs" coming from them. This isn't science. This is advance notice of what they intend to claim, once they've spent enough money. The best science available indicates the Earth is quite unique in many, many respects. They know this, but they aren't interested at all. One should recall that in real science, repeatability is a major factor. None of the revelations these people plan to announce will be repeatable. No, they set themselves up as authorities that their story should be immune from dispute. (Personal note: just watch - they're such pathetic liars they'll still tell an obviously inconsistent tale, even when they have a monopoly on "observations".) And how anyone can trust them is beyond me. They insist I.D. is bogus, yet openly plan to "discover" space aliens so they can "solve" the problems facing evolutionism. The I.D. advocates who posit space alien intervention are labeled kooks by people positing exactly the same thing. Know the difference? The I.D. advocates admit that life appears to be designed, while the hypocrites insist it doesn't. They insist there's no way to detect design or intelligence, yet they're telling us they're going to discover space aliens. Do lies come more self-contradictory or self-serving? Methinks there's no way to detect intelligence in any creature fooled by such a lie. Of course it's all got to be snazzy and multi-media, too. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfmAnd one final link just because it's there, http://origins.stsci.edu/
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
I have a little progress to report - not that it will necessarily matter too much to folks. The tracking down of my Hubble quote is nearly complete. http://knol.google.com/k/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe#…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favored position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape The dogma that the Earth must not be special drove cosmologists to accept 4-dimensional space. Observationally, if space is 3-dimensional, the Earth is undeniably in an unique position with respect to the entire universe. Only by positing an unobservable 4th dimension could this be "explained" away. That's a pretty useful link, by the way. It debunks the error of the heliocentric "school" we often encounter.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
