gregorygarver.com

[sarahaeris]

Science learns too. When verifiable evidence contradicts an established theory, the theory gets revised. The important thing is communication and verification. Individuals and groups of scientists may have a bias toward their pet theories, but facts eventually win.One thing science has learned is that there are some unethical scientists who are more interested in fame than truth. Piltdown Man, cold fusion, the Korean cloning scandal and other hoaxes have shown the importance of testing objectivity and verifying results.You refered to the Soviet Union, NOT Russia. This suggests you are looking at political propaganda from the Cold War. I recall attending a world's fair many years ago and visiting the Soviet pavilion. My interest in the exhibits got me a free book from a docent on the planetary theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, who turned out to be a crackpot. Have any of these non-biological petroleum experiments been replicated in the post-Soviet era? If they worked, the oil industry would be all over them. Instead, they are spending millions on poo-poohing "global warming" and pretending to be working on fuel economy for the sake of continuing to make obscene profits.Yes, there are forces trying to bend science toward their interests, but science resists because it is only interested in the facts. Politics and commerce try to control EVERYTHING to maintain the status quo. Science advises change when the status quo appears unsustainable. In the end, money usually wins. Before buying into the abio-petroleum theory, you might ask who is trying to sell what to whom?

[cybersharque]

I'm not going to read that whole damn article, but even if it's true that fossil fuels are not a by product of organic material, how the hell does that have anything in the world to do with evolution!Evolution is the process by which simple organisms become increasingly complex through natural selection as a result of accumulated genetic mutations and environmental adaptations. I don't see how in the world that relates to the source of oil deposits in the Earth's crust.Furthermore, how the hell can you link evolution to SETI or the search for water on Mars. This article is nothing more than religious propaganda which a couple of legitimate scientific questions and distorts them to so that the reader becomes lost as to the actual point and/or wowed by the conclusions put forward. I read through about half of the article and there was not one single scientific explanation - backed up with studies - to say why "fossil fuels" is an invalid term or to otherwise explain the source of the "refilling" of oil deposits. And I can't even understand how they link oil deposits to evolution.I guess this is the next tactic of religion - blind them with pseudo-science.

[fwiiw]

God is the Master Scientist...this is why man is always coming up with disputed theories,he is only a mortal.

[loanman]

Petroleum comes from old old remains of marine diatoms, which is why it's found under salt domes and in fossil mud (shale).Yes, this process can be simulated by other means. *shrug*

[fwiiw]

Thank you, Michelle, for this: I know of evidence that temperatures in the 6th Century AD in Britain were an average of 6 deg. Celsius higher than they are now, but scientists tell us to worry about a 4 dg. Celsius rise. I also know that the main developer of MRI scanners was overlooked for the Nobel Prize for its invention, yet junior team members were awarded. Could that be because he is a Creationist?Russell T Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Uranus & Neptune that his colleagues scorned; Humphreys' predictions, based on an age measured in thousands of years rather than billions, were on the nose, while his colleagues, based on long-age beliefs, were way off. The scientists then had to go back to the drawing-board to try & make the observed data match their pre-conceived notions of the solar system's age.Dinosaur blood, still containing haemoglobin & DNA, was found in fossil rocks (in the desert, not Arctic tundra). Observed 'shelf-life' expectancy of these things are about 10,000 years, not 65,000,000 years; yet the scientists rake over this.'Missing links' between man &'ape-like ancestors' are routinely trumpeted in the popular press, but findings later demolishing these much-touted 'ancestors' are never reported. Neanderthal Man is still taught a an ancestor, yet the evidence of the skeletons suggests they suffered from disease; also, their brains were larger than ours, & they performed elaborate burials. Some anthropologists are honest enough to say they are just the same as 'modern man'.Are there any other people out there with evidence of how scientists hide things in background?

[loanman]

lots of things.Especially this new enviro-junk science.

[JorgeB]

Almost everything. The definition of mass. Mass does not change -- in reality the mass of an electron changes during a reaction or interaction with a photon. The laws of diffusion utterly wrong. The origin of the fine structure constant they have no idea -- it is found in the definition of mass. Quantum Mechanics based on a particle in a box; There is no aether -- there is a mass related aether; um -- relativity, there is a relativity but what science claims was only a tiny part of reality; that we can find the truth only through evidence based science, actually the truth requires a perception of God as the sole source of reality through the Logos, or Perfect Thought; evolution as the sole source of the appearance of what it means to be human -- wrong, as there is no evolutionary evidence for Mind. Denial of the spiritual because it cannot be scientifically, or empirically defined -- LOL that is the definition of the spiritual, but scientists like to dismiss it even though history has provided evidence for many many spiritually gifted individuals and groups -- certainly people a lot more gifted than the hard-core scientist: Hermes, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Morihei Ueshiba, Mayan shamans, shamans from all cultures, ... It's time to wake up. You are right, science has become a form of indoctrination of children, but really, it is an amazing pile of gibberish trying to pass as the truth. Scientist should cool down a bit an knock of the rhetoric about the truth, science does not own the truth. The Dunce