Science -- What dont we know?

[Hahnemannian444]

I'm not aware of any problems with electric cars here, but it may have been some special production with high efficiency.

 

I do, however, remember that everybody from whom the cars were taken wanted to keep them.

[atinymonkey]

Sorry, the comment about being ‘either stupid or ignorant’ was just a joke. An attempt to lighten the post a little, and show the post wasn’t a dig at your basic theory. It failed a bit, I guess.

 

Apologys, I didn’t have the references to hand. Your right, the coal hydrogenation did indeed exist, but it wasn’t ransomed by Rockefeller, Standard Oil had developed and financed the process with I.G. Farben prior to the start of the war, which left Rockefeller with a quarter share in the patent for that point onwards. I was confusing the synthetic-gasoline with ethyl lead when I talked about the Petrol composite. Anyhow, the patent is now on the open market:-

 

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/patents/ru/su0632296_abs.htm

 

It’s not really that is a secret; it’s just an expensive process. More expensive than just drilling for oil. Mind you, I’d have to read that Joseph Brown book to see what conclusions he draws from it.

 

I’m sure I’m not wrong about the Gentleman’s agreement. In 1940 the bombing raid on Sept the 7th that lead to the accidental bombing of central London consisted of a dozen of the Luftwaffe who’s target had been aircraft factories and oil tanks outside London. The industrial plants were not out of bounds at any point in the war, however civilians were. The attempt to ‘break the will’ of the English came as a response to the retaliation bombing of Berlin, on September the 4th (3 days past the anniversary of the start of the War) Hitler stated “When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our city’s, then we will raze their cities to the ground”, which is exactly what they attempted. The folly of this was that neither side wished to attack civilians, they felt that they were retaliating for wrongdoings. However, industrial targets remained a priority thought the bombing campaign including oil refineries. A quick google search would confirm that . Spear does make the point that he warned about losing the oil refineries, and the war effort would be crippled, but that was the Allies entire reasoning behind the bombing.

 

My Grandfather was a Commanding Officer in the Air force throughout World War II, and was directly aware of strategy in use by the Allies. If you want to play the relatives card, that at least matches it!

 

But I completely agree with the childish futility of war. It’s sickening to think that people can weigh up human life and actually say ‘it’s an acceptable loss’.

[Hahnemannian444]

Atinymonkey,

 

I thank you for the posting.

 

It's not a common subject, and it's thus refreshing to examine a part of history I've found that got us into the mess we are in now with oil dependency and cars built on the now-famous Western premise of planned obsolesence.

 

You said at least two things, however, that I am finding either dispute with or the need to clarify what I said; one of them is this:

 

Standard Oil had developed and financed the process with I.G. Farben prior to the start of the war, which left Rockefeller with a quarter share in the patent for that point onwards.

 

That's not what Joseph Borken recorded.

 

He said that Rockefeller, through Standard Oil, bought the world patent rights (save I.G. Farben's patent rights for Germany) in 1926 for some gargantum figure.

 

Standard did indeed want to participate in the process, but I.G. Farben kept everything secret and then sold it when the Reich was broke and I.G. too.

 

And Rockefeller had 100% of the patent.

 

Borken is a good authority to me, but maybe some things are sticky details.

 

------------

 

Then I have some problem with this remark:

 

However, industrial targets remained a priority thought the bombing campaign including oil refineries.

 

I tell you again that my father flew in these raids, and those guys wanted to know why they did not bomb the fuel factories.

 

They didn't until, I believe, June of 1944.

 

Three months later, I think, the war was over in Europe because it brought the Nazi war machine to a standstill, just as my father said everyone knew would happen.

 

I am fully aware that heavy industry was targeted, for my father flew into Regansberg (sp?) and another hell-hole to get at the Messerschmidt factory and the ball-bearing factory; however, I got the impression that the term "heavy industry" was a euphemism having to do with I.G. Farben's factories in particular, for the one at Auschwitz was never bombed nor any other till three months before the end of the war.

 

This is a very important point.

 

I am telling you that you are going to be totally outraged when you discover from the three books referenced that there was an overt plan/conspiracy by industrialists and bankers to bring Hitler to power in order to gain control of the natural resources of the world.

 

That's basically what happened too.

 

IBM was part of it; the three Swiss banks that laundered the stollen Nazi gold took part in it, as did the Swiss munitions industry; Standard Oil/Exxon has certainly been part in it as evidenced by their worldwide drilling efforts; I.G. Farben and other petrochemical and pharmaceutical conglomerates were and are part of it; Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" is certainly part of it, and myriad small and large other corporations are tied into it whether they want to be or not.

 

These are very disturbing facts.

 

It does not proceed to conspiracy theorists' bold assertions; it only reports the facts of a documented and discovered plan by Western industrialists and bankers to gain control of the world, which they managed and which apparently had its formal beginnings with the instigation of the U.S. Civil War followed by the consequent Industrial Revolution and the worldwide control they have increasingly tightened without very many people either noticing or carrying much since the eternally unstable and fragile economy is what appears to perpetuate it along with fear.

 

Incidentally, Borken's book contains the only reasonable explanation I have ever found for the Kennedy assassinations, for both of them seem to have accepted huge graft payments, via their father brokering the deal, for the return of I.G. Farben's U.S. holding, Aniline Dye Co. (I think).

 

Regardless, it is a total enigma that the three I.G. Farben synthetic-fuel factories were not bombed till very late in the war, whereas the Allies knew very well that Nazi Germany was almost totally dependent upon them.

 

Enigma is the wrong word for it; it smells of international corportism and treason as we find common today being foisted upon people by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the other part of the banking triad of evil that changed names from the International Chamber of Commerce, etc.

 

Argh.....

 

---------------

 

Yes, it is expensive, and coal is also limited.

 

I think the important additional fact involved here in the hydrogenation process is that with it they doubled the output of gasoline from petroleum.

 

Still, my point was that billionaires clearly want to bleed the earth dry of petroleum and spend us into no-man's land with internal combustion engines before they finally let us use electric, fuel-cell and solar cars, to say nothing of the fact that they haven't even begun to tap the coal deposits for hydrogenation.

 

We will never have a problem with fuel energy, just with the powers that be telling us their lies.

 

I can let this element of this die here with that said and anything else you might want to add.

 

---------------

 

Also, my father was just a waist gunner on B-17s.

 

But I contest that there was any war strategy when all of the airmen knew that the primary targets were the fuel refineries they would occassionally fly over and about which they knew existed while Germany was blockaded and thus made totally dependent upon.

 

To quote my father, "What strategy? to kill us?"

[AO_champion]

Hey, hate to get off the topic of German tanks and oil and whatnot.... But science can definitely prove the Bible.... Or at least it can't disprove the Bible in any way. I suppose lack of evidence isn't evidence for a lack. I personally think that something you would have posted on here eventually would have been "it can't prove the Bible," but that's not true. It can, and it does if you look at it right. Let's see... how about Noah's flood which nobody wants to admit was global? Hmm... here's something interesting.

 

 

And article from a site I like... http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org

 

 

"A few years ago, some geologists in Australia were objecting in print to the idea of interpreting geology in terms of the Bible and Noah’s Flood.1 They argued that it was impossible to explain the rocks of the world within a 6,000-year time-frame, even allowing for a year-long global flood. For some reason they had not appreciated that the evidences of large-scale, watery catastrophe in the geological record2 are just what we would expect from the global Flood of the Bible.3 Indeed, one vivid illustration was featured on the cover of the same issue of the magazine in which their objections were published.4

 

The cover (Figure, right) showed a bedded sandstone formation in a remote part of Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve, Northern Territory, Australia. The sedimentary bedding varies in thickness from thin to medium, and is sub-horizontal. Altogether the sandstone pictured, which is quite friable, is over 5 m thick.

 

This particular outcrop is part of a 340-m-thick unit called the McKay Sandstone within the mildly-deformed McArthur Basin of northern Australia. The unit comprises medium- to coarse-grained sandstone together with minor fine-grained sandstone, granules, pebbles and basalt.5 It has been classified as Paleoproterozoic, based on interpretations of U-Pb dating of zircons from igneous units in the area.5,6

 

In the picture, a large, cylindrical structure cuts vertically across the bedding of the sedimentary rock. The diameter of the columnar structure is not constant, but varies from 1.3–1.7 m over its length.

 

Like the surrounding sedimentary rock, the column is composed of sandstone, but in this case it is unbedded, except for vague vertical layering, concentric with its circumference. The base of the column sits on top of a fine-grained basalt sill 3–4 m thick. The top of the sill has a ropy surface and contacts baked and vuggy7 sandstone and mudstone, in places brecciated. The sill contains distinctly zoned amygdales8 that are larger in the middle of the sill.

 

Numerous similar pipes occur within the sandstone, at irregular intervals along strike,9 at the same level immediately above the sill. They vary in diameter from 2–10 m and are up to 5 m high. The longest preserved length is over 4 m.4,5

 

These columns point to large-scale geological catastrophe. When the basalt lava intruded horizontally, the sand was still wet and unconsolidated. The heat from the molten rock boiled the water immediately above the sill. As a result the water welled up, forming a vertical column through the sandstone. The upward flowing water suspended the sand particles against gravity, causing the sediment to behave like a fluid. Naturally, the flow destroyed the layers of horizontal bedding. Because of this behaviour, the structure has been called a ‘fluidisation pipe’.

 

Refute attacks on Noah’s Flood by both bibliosceptics and their ‘progressive creationist’ followers!

Studies in Flood Geology

 

John Woodmorappe

 

A collection of technical articles, most of them originally published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, written by a well-qualified geologist and biologist on many vital topics in Flood geology. Some highlights include explaining the huge amounts of coal on Earth, the Karroo formation, the radical incompleteness of the “Geologic Column”, and the distribution of animals after the Flood.

 

208 pages

High School–Adult

 

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

 

It is clear that fluidisation pipes point to large-scale rapid geological processes.

 

First, the sedimentation rate must have been extremely rapid to produce an unconsolidated, water-filled layer of sand at least 5 m thick over a large geographic area. There are many other evidences in the McKay Sandstone that the sedimentation rate was very high, including the occurrence of planar lamination (even in thick-bedded units),10 metre-scale folding of beds, and large dewatering structures.11 Rather than millions of years, the sedimentation rate indicates very rapid deposition.

 

The basalt sill also points to large-scale rapid, catastrophe. The complete thickness of the sill must have intruded quickly over the whole area before the water-logged sediments were able to quench and harden the magma. A thin sill would have been easily quenched, and a slow intrusion rate would have allowed time for the water to start circulating and cool the magma. The entire sill must have been emplaced very quickly before the overlying water had time to boil and establish the strong circulation that fluidised the sand.

 

And finally, the fluidisation pipes mean that sedimentation and sill emplacement occurred together, indicating that there was virtually no time between the two processes. Thus, fluidisation pipes are one more example of large-scale, watery catastrophe in the geological record.

 

With such clear evidence of pervasive, inter-woven catastrophe, it is surprising that geologists do not see the implications. Even though they carefully describe the structures and appreciate something of the speed and scale of the processes, they do not realise that the evidence destroys the concept of millions of years. This illustrates how a paradigm can constrain people from seeing the implications of what they observe. The bigger implication, of course, is that the evidence is just what we would expect from the global Flood of the Bible.

 

Biblical geology is such a refreshing, stimulating, alternative. It breaks open the straight-jacketed thinking of long-age philosophy, and it makes sense of the evidence."

[AO_champion]

I suppose my post above doesn't really answer the main question that this whole thread presents.... that is what do we not know? Well... how about evolution? If we can only ‘speculate’ on the origin of life, why do so many people state that evolution is a ‘fact’? It would be nice to remind people that evolution is only a theory and cannot be proved by any means that I've seen expressed. But I guess if you repeat a rumour often enough and people will swallow it.

[Intelligence]

AO - Evolution is a proven scientific fact.

 

There is as much evidence to prove evolution as there is ANYTHING in science.

 

What do you mean SPECULATE on the origin of life.

 

Life on Earth has been traced back to its complete and total change from non-life to life. The exact elements and origins on Earth where this began is known.

 

What the hell do you mean SPECULATE.

 

I suppose it's a speculation as to whether gravity occurs?

 

You're truly a distrubed human being. It's comforting to know that less of you are around each year.

 

Where you here these non-truths is really a sick horrible place.

 

Can we really call that mass of tissue in your head a brain?

[AO_champion]

Wow, touching, honestly. But I don't see how evolution is proved one whit! You give me one little bit of proof you have that evolution is true! It's a load of crap! Let me ask you this... where do you get your reasoning from? Hmm... the brain? yes... I believe that's it, the brain. Ok, according to you, the brain is a product of evolution, yea? So how can you be sure that yours evolved right?

 

Evolution is a speculation, a theory, it isn't in any way a scientific fact. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated and observed... You can honestly say that evolution is a proven fact to you based on evidence you have seen repeated with your very own eyes? Bah!

 

There are plenty of scientific facts that can support it when viewed in a certain light, yes. But it is all speculation when you come down to it. Where did life come from? Some random piece of chance, eh? Oh that makes a good deal of sense. You tell me how in the world you can look at the endless complexity of life and say that it's all just an accident... just a cosmic "oops," if you will.

 

 

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

 

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

 

If you were to sit at your computer desk and hold a can of Coca Cola right now, would you tell me it was the product of chance only because I couldn't immediately point out the guy who designed it for you?

[Sayonara]

AO_champion is correct, the evolutionary process is only a theory that cannot be proven per se.

 

However I would be interested in hearing about these "flaws" he mentioned in the other thread as, having studied evolutionary processes for 9 years now, I have seen no evidence of such.

 

I'd also be very impressed if he could tell me a bit about evolution, the primary workings etc. I'd be astonished if he could identify commonly-held false beliefs about evolution. I wonder if he realises most of evolutionary theory is pure maths, which is not really disputable?

 

The fact is that there are repeatable experiments that can demonstrate both evolutionary and selective processes in action. There is more evidence for the evolutionary processes than for most other collections of scientific theories.

 

What evidence is there for God? What evidence is there for the creationist argument?

 

Doubtless you'll fall back on geological evidence or whimsical interpretations of texts that have been translated fifty-three times, and claim that they match 'god's word in the bible'. Clearly demonstrating you don't know how to identify evidence.

 

I suggest keeping your opinions about god in the religion forum where they can be debated by the people who care. Ramming your opinion on religious matters down the throats of people in the general science thread is considered bad form. As for your misconceptions about evolution, read a good book that isn't written by a religious fanatic then come back.

 

And don't mind Intelligence, he's like that with everyone.

[Intelligence]

"only a theory"?

 

That's the biggest load of shit I've heard.

 

Every facet of evolution has been proven with precision that would break your balls.

 

It's sick to think a moderator of a science forum would be that delusional about the truth. Truly sick.

[fafalone]

You, sir, are in violation of ScienceForums.net Policy Title 2 Section 2 Subsections a, b, f, and h.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by UnIntelligence

Every facet of evolution has been proven with precision that would break your balls.

No it hasn't, stop mixing metaphors, and - most importantly - take a deep breath.

[Intelligence]

Fafalone - I could care less. Whichever jackass switched my name is a real piece of work. It's amazing how angry and jealous people get when faced with truth. Truly amazing.

 

BananaHoe - Yes it has. You're just to lazy to do the dirty work.

[fafalone]

And now you're in violation of 2.a.ii, since that would be me who changed your username and title to more accurately reflect your level of intellectual capacity.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by UnIntelligence

 

BananaHoe - Yes it has. You're just to lazy to do the dirty work.

 

Like take a degree in Applied Biology?

 

Hmmmm.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by UnIntelligence

BananaHoe - Yes it has. You're just to lazy to do the dirty work.

Perhaps then you can explain:

 

1) Why every single University on the face of the planet that has a biology department has researchers engaged in tackling the unknowns of evolutionary and selective processes,

 

2) Why, year-on-year, theories and formulae are still being revised, dropped and added into the Evolutionary Theory Group (from here known as ETG),

 

3) Why anybody bothers to observe populations for cross-generation effects and Mendelian drift in the lab or in the field across several generations and at ludicrous expense,

 

4) How the ETG can be complete when we still have no answers as to how life began, how it developed from inert organic material to the cellular form we know today, and why it exists,

 

5) How the ETG can be complete when we have no model for interplanetary ecology,

 

6) How the ETG can be complete when we still have no complete models for deep-rock microbe systems, ice-locked microbe systems or deep-sea sulphur vent ecosystems,

 

7) Why, if the ETG is complete, can discrete intraspecific events not be predicted?

 

 

And those are just some off-the-cuff examples from a biologist who supports evolution as a concept.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Intelligence

only a theory?

 

It's not going to be a theorem, is it?

 

Someone needs to learn the lingo!