Academia, Bizarre, International, Religion, Society

Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed

Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.


Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”

This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News

452 thoughts on “Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed”

  1. Bob,

    So you think that Dr. Harrit’s paper will answer all of the questions raised about Dr. Jones’ work? We’ll see… I never said the Harrit paper wasn’t peer reviewed – I implied it wan’t in a respected journal (and it isn’t). The Bazant paper I linked is from a respected, peer-reviewed journal and Dr. Greening is an author.

  2. Neils Harrit’s paper is peer reviewed.

    Apollo20’s comments appear before publication of the paper and are not peer reviewed.

  3. Byron,

    Don’t you know that DNA is more fungible than nano-thermite? 😉

  4. BobEsq:

    how can you come to a conclusion if you don’t compare to the primer or in Slarti’s post a number of other possibilities?

    Isn’t it the same as me taking a DNA swab of a defendant and saying oh yes it’s the guy because he has CF and the DNA sample taken shows the same pair of CF genes. It could be but don’t you have to compare the entire DNA sequence they use to determine guilt to be exactly sure?

  5. Another comment from Apollo20 at JREF:

    The REAL problem with Jones’ paper, and why I would not view it as being truly “scientific”, is to be found in the first sentence of the RESULTS section of the paper. Here Jones et al. tell us that “We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape in the WTC dust samples.”

    Jones does not tell us how he “found” these solidified droplets or what percentage of the sample(s) they represented. As far as I can tell, Jones offers no further quantitative estimate of the concentration of these “droplets” in the WTC dust. All we ever get is the vague term: “an abundance”.

    Interestingly, in his previous work, Jones attests to needing magnetic separation to extract his iron-rich microspheres. However, with Jones’ latest effort we are left wondering if specialized sub-sampling techniques were used by Jones and why no QUANTITATIVE CONCENTRATION DATA, (in mg/kg for example), were acquired for important elements in the dust samples like Fe, Mn, Al, O, Fe, S, Si, etc, instead of relative EDX abundances of some elements in the microspheres.

    It is this lack of attention to experimental detail that makes Jones’ latest paper ambiguous and deceptive. Jones should know his research needs to meet recognized scientific standards of reproducibility, but perhaps not, especially when this paper has no section labeled “CONCLUSION”.

  6. Bob,

    Apparently Dr. Jones feels no need to eliminate these as potential sources of the residues he found, maybe you can help (this is a JREF forum post by Apollo20 (Dr. Greening):

    This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to [Dr. Jones] about a month ago: [the comment is from 1/29/2008]

    “Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

    Pigments and fillers used in plastics
    Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
    Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
    Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
    Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
    Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
    NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources”

    I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.

    Another post from January, 2008 by Apollo20:

    This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

    Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

    Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just “playing it safe” in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface……

    But consider this: Jones’ last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

    Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that “covering the bases.”

    But, as I said before, Jones’ thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!

    Or this comment to someone pointing out the high concentration of microspheres that Dr. Jones found:

    Sizzler:

    Yes, I have seen the RJ Report giving that interesting result. But that is one number for a small sample….. Anyway, let’s say it is nevertheless a representative sample so that, on average, the WTC dust contained 5.87 % of iron spheres. This would be 5.87 % of say 50,000 tonnes or 2935 tonnes of iron spheres in the total mass of WTC dust. This would be 1468 tonnes per tower or say 13.3 tonnes per floor.

    That is a phenomenal amount of iron spheres!

    Is that your point, Sizzler?

  7. Byron: “If it wasn’t compared to a sample of the primer used in the WTC, I don’t think you can come to a conclusion.”

    Yes you can:

    “If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.”

  8. BobEsq:

    Did they match it against the primer used on the trade center facade or some other paint sample?

    Primer is different than paint. Primer is also reddish in color or at least some of the primers used in steel construction.

    If it wasn’t compared to a sample of the primer used in the WTC, I don’t think you can come to a conclusion.

  9. Byron: “I have long thought those chips were from primer on the structural steel of the facade and the aluminum coating of the facade. Rust probably would have been attached to the primer.

    Your thoughts?”

    Hmmm….

    “7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

    We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula:

    Specific resistivity = RA / L

    where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
    = thickness (m).

    Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
    mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].

    Another test, described above, involved subjection of red chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

    Further, we have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across) in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite composite. Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in Fig. (20) above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.”

    “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

  10. bOBESQ:

    I have long thought those chips were from primer on the structural steel of the facade and the aluminum coating of the facade. Rust probably would have been attached to the primer.

    Your thoughts?

  11. Slarti: “‘What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York’ by Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).”

    Fast forward to April of 2009, where the burdens shift…

    “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

    Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
    of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
    are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
    at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”

    Be sure not to ignore the ‘detailed results from the DSC which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.’

    The proponent of an item of real evidence must demonstrate its genuineness by clear and convincing evidence. People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 59, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343-344. See FRE 901(a) (authentication merely requires “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims”). If the thing offered is capable of being replaced or altered, the proponent must provide evidence of its identity and integrity, usually by showing a chain of custody tracking the item from its acquisition to its presentation at trial.
    People v Julian, supra

    Once again:

    The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA. It’s the trout in the milk. And for you to ignore it and continue on about theories that don’t account for said ‘trout in milk’ is tantamount to basing your theories on the properties of aether in a post Michaelson-Morely world.

  12. In my response to Lincoln I said:

    [1.8 MJ] is enough energy to crush 268 kg of concrete into 50 micrometer powder, or assuming that the ‘gravel’ was instead a 60 ton block of an unyielding substance with the same footprint as the dump truck that doesn’t bounce and neglecting the energy lost to sonic and seismic waves, then enough energy would be dissipated into the roadway to pulverize less than 1 cm of concrete (this thickness will vary with the cube of particle size, by the way). I used calculations from the report linked above to do this analysis. Does that answer your question?

    I should have said that the thickness will vary with the square of particle size (surface area) not the cube (volume). My bad.

  13. Another little tidbit to chew on…

    Appendix C of the FEMA report also excites the curious mind. Here the microstructures of two samples of corroded WTC steel are examined. The first (Sample 1) appears to be from WTC 7, the second from one of the Twin Towers. Both have been attacked by some eutectic solution, causing the severe corrosion seen in the pictures and the intergranular melting seen under the microscope. However, the temperature of the eutectic in both cases was easily determined by the properties of the two pieces of steel. Sample 1′s eutectic approached 1,000ºC (meaning it did not go over that limit), and Sample 2′s stayed within a range of 700-800ºC. Both are extremely high temperatures, but since thermite burns far hotter than even this, thermite is conclusively ruled out as a source for this corrosive attack.

  14. Bob and Lincoln,

    Since I don’t expect you to check out any of the links on the page I posted, I thought that I would give you the abstract of ‘What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York’ by Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).

    Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

    If you want to read about all of the problems raised for the CD theory by this paper, you can find it here. Incidentally, this would be a peer reviewed article in a respected journal, in case you didn’t know what one of those looked like…

  15. Byron said:

    “But doesn’t DNA repair degrade as we get older?”

    If it does, I’ve never heard about it and I work with people who would be aware of this if it were known to be true (with whom I have extensively discussed DNA repair).

    “And also don’t telomeres play a role in how we age?”

    The telomeres get shorter every time a cell divides unless the cell line is immortalized by the addition of telomerase. Methylation of DNA also plays a role in aging as I understand it…

    “So couldn’t you say just as easily that since the otter was at the end of it’s life the DNA repair mechanism wasn’t working as well?”

    I have no evidence to support that, so I wouldn’t say it. It could be true, but I doubt it is more than a minor effect at best.

    Aging is caused by something other than environmental substances.

    Yes.

    Isn’t aging built into our DNA to cause us to die to make way for subsequent generations?

    Aging is built into our DNA so to speak – science* tends to concentrate more on what than why in this context. I would say aging is built into our DNA which causes us to die and make way for subsequent generations – why this is true starts to get into questions of abiogenesis, the mechanisms of evolution, and philosophy.

    *More properly I should say ‘I tend to concentrate more…’ – as I am making an appeal to authority based on my own expertise, I don’t want to stray to far from the basis of that expertise.

  16. Buddha,

    Thanks for your answer. As far as I am concerned you are off the merry-go-round (I’ll wave to you occasionally as Bob and I go past… ;-)). What drives my confidence beyond merely the probability that I am correct which you mentioned is my belief that a complete theory of the collapse and aftermath which is consistent with the observations and requires controlled demolition can not be constructed. Obviously this belief can not be proven, but the research I’ve done in the course of this debate suggests to me that this is the case.

    Since I asked you the question, I’ve been thinking about the answer myself. I assumed that no new physical evidence will come to light and only considered the scientific issue (so no paper trail or whistleblower). Since Bob’s argument hinges on Dr. Jones’ work, I considered what would strengthen his conclusions. First, releasing his samples to be confirmed by an independent lab (preferably one skeptical of the CD hypothesis) would be a big step towards credibility (even in light of the chain of custody issues). Also a strong scientific argument that the samples could only have resulted from manufactured explosives would make me reconsider my opinion (I think Dr. Jones is long on claims and short on the science to back it up). Finally, A complete theory of the collapse and aftermath which required manufactured thermitic materials and was consistent with all of the observations (including evidence that it would have produced residue of the kind and amounts found in the samples) would go a long way towards convincing me. In any case, I’m probably on this merry-go-round as long as Bob wants to play and I’m not holding my breath until one of these things occurs…

  17. Slarti:

    thanks for the correction. But doesn’t DNA repair degrade as we get older? And also don’t telomeres play a role in how we age? So couldn’t you say just as easily that since the otter was at the end of it’s life the DNA repair mechanism wasn’t working as well? Aging is caused by something other than environmental substances. Isn’t aging built into our DNA to cause us to die to make way for subsequent generations?

  18. Slarti,

    You asked, “Out of curiosity, what do you think would be sufficient evidence to re-open the case?”

    I’ve been thinking about it and the best I can give you is a compound answer.

    1) I cannot say with certainty as part of the essential nature of unknown evidence is that it is unknown.

    2) That being said, anything that could lead to proof of conspiracy proper (paper trail, direct testimony of conspirator, etc.) or that could cast further doubt on the natural collapse theory (better chemical evidence) would have to rank up at the top of desired evidence list. All of which become less attainable or tenable as time goes on and evidence is lost, corrupted and/or destroyed.

    The bottom line is your statement, “I cannot prove that explosive charges were not used in the impact zone to initiate the collapse, for instance, but they are not necessary to explain how the collapse started or why it was self-sustaining.” [emphasis added]

    As I said before, your answer is most likely, however it doesn’t dispel alternative theories in toto absent better evidence (which being unknown could carry the argument either way). Probable will never be the same word as possible. So absent better evidence, this argument never ends for either of you. That’s the main reason I got off the merry-go-round. The result is still natural collapse more likely than not but there are other possibilities not sufficiently disproved to be ignored. Absence of proof is not proof of absence and you admit yourself you have nothing to eliminate the alternative theory other than a viable alternative theory of your own. Since both theories are possible regardless of probability (at this point with the current level of evidence), then they both remain viable solutions (until further evidence lends conclusory certainty to either side).

  20. Byron said:

    “Human beings get cancers as they age because of declining immune systems.”

    Um, no. Your immune system doesn’t protect you from cancer, your DNA repair mechanism and the DNA damage checkpoints in the cell cycle protect you from cancer. As far as I know (and I model the DNA damage G2 checkpoint and nucleotide excision repair – a form of DNA repair) these mechanisms do not decline with age. Exposure to agents which damage your DNA increases the risk of a genetic event which leads to cancer. Age has nothing to do with it.

Comments are closed.