Science is in Itself a Fraud (II) Theory of Evolution Best Example of Intellectual Mediocrity of Western Thinkers

new-lens 5


An example of fantasies and silly representations of the first men

Having failed to originate life, Dio-Tech decided to focus on its evolution. Jonathan Wells titled his book, already mentioned, “Icons of Evolution”. An icon is an image-object of worship; derived from the Greek eikōn, image; closely related to another Greek term, eidōlon –idol, image. No doubt Wells knew what he was doing because evolution is indeed an object of worship, an icon so badly painted that even Darwin had his doubts, expressed in his letter of January 1, 1871 to Joseph Hooker (but not only), in which he recognizes that the basic problem of his theory is that of the way life originated:

If it could be proved that there existed a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous, successive and slight modifications, my theory would collapse completely.

At that time, Darwin’s time, the world was still young. Little was known for example of the cell. In due time it was discovered that the cell is such an extraordinarily complex living system of countless elements in constant interaction with one another that it could not have been formed by “numerous, successive and slight modifications” –one of the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution, which in fact collapsed more than 50 years ago. However, may Mr. Darwin keep resting in peace, even though his rest might not be free from nightmares.

We have already said that when something does not work within the materialistic conception of existence, this conception retreats stealthily and picks up an element, already forgotten, of some other school of thought, which can lead to the much sought-after murder of God. In this case it was evolution –a proposal already found among some of our more distant ancestors. We can quote Anaximander (610-546 BC) and Empedocles (490-430 BC), who argued that certain organisms could have descended from other organisms. Similar theories were put forth by the Latin poet and philosopher Lucretius Carus in his work “De rerum natura” (1st century BC). The Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu (4th century BC) rejected the fixity of biological species and speculated on the possibility of their having developed different characteristics in response to different environments. Already close to our era, the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430) affirmed that the account of creation in Genesis should not be taken literally. As he explains in his book “De genesi ad litteram”, in some cases new creatures would have formed due to the “decomposition” of more primitive life forms. Nor did Muslim scholars lagged behind when it came to imagining scenarios beyond the basic structure of existence. Al Jahiz (full name: Abu Uthman Amr Bahr Alkanani al-Basri), of Ethiopian origin but educated in Iraq, was one of the most lucid minds of his time (died 869). He wrote about science, geography, philosophy, Arabic grammar and literature. He has even been called “the father of the theory of evolution”. He says in his 7 volume “Kitab al Haywan” (The Book of Animals, where he discusses and describes 350 animals):

Animals struggle for existence and resources; they fight to avoid being devoured and to be able to reproduce. Environmental factors induce organisms to develop new characteristics that ensure their survival, thus transforming them into other species. Animals that survive and reproduce can pass on their characteristics to their offspring.

The first European contribution to these observations comes from the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (died 1829) –the environment produces modifications of characters; the function creates the organ; the acquired characters are inherited. Lamarck was convinced that it was the necessity that produced such changes and that these changes were hereditary. Finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin presents his own theory of evolution in his book “The Origin of Species”. A year earlier he had written and published a series of articles together with Alfred Wallace, a researcher who had independently arrived at the same conclusions.

It is evident that the desire to assassinate God is quite old, probably as old as the world. Let’s not forget that already in the Garden the shaytan proposed it to Adam:

(120) The shaytan whispered to him, saying: “Adam! Do you want me to show you the tree of immortality and a dominion that never extinguishes?
Sura 20 – Ta Ha

One often quoted line of reasoning in support of evolution is the similarity between embryos of different animals. As Wells points out in his “Icons of Evolution”, Darwin concluded that early stage embryos manifest the condition of the progenitor of the entire group in its adult form. In other words, the similarities in the early stage embryos not only prove that they descend from a common ancestor, but also show what this ancestor looked like. Darwin thought this was “the most solid argument in favour of his theory”, but relied on others for information. His main source in this respect was the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, whose drawings, used for approximately 150 years to support the theory of evolution, clearly demonstrated similarities between embryos of very different species. However, Elizabeth Pennisi in the magazine “Science” (5 September 1997) reported the following on the findings of Michael Richardson, embryologist at the School of Medicine at the St. George Hospital in London:

For a long time now Richardson has been in doubt about Haeckel’s drawings. He and his colleagues carried out their own study, examining and photographing embryos arranged according to species and age, and comparing their findings with Haeckel’s drawings. They found that the embryos often looked surprisingly different. Not only had Haeckel added or omitted characteristics, but he also manipulated the scale of his drawings in order to exaggerate similarities between species, even when the differences in size were of the order of 10 times bigger or smaller.

Clearly, also scientific fraud is something ancient, at least as old and the Akademia.

Of even more serious consequence is the fact that the theory of evolution was constructed without taking into consideration existence and functioning of DNA, which was outside the scope of Darwin’s microscopes. The first documented observation of DNA (1868) belongs to Friedrich Miescher, Swiss student of cell metabolism and discoverer of nucleic acids, but it was not until 1953 that James Dewey Watson (American geneticist) and Francis Crick (British biophysicist), working at the Cavendish Laboratory (1951-53), published its structure in the magazine “Nature”. Their research, as often happens in the Akademia, had its fraudulent aspect.

The chemist Rosalind Franklin joined in 1951 the Biophysical Laboratory at King’s College, London as a research fellow and worked there together with Maurice Wilkins on the application of X-ray diffraction methods to the study of DNA. When she began her research very little was known about the chemical makeup or structure of DNA. However, she soon discovered the density of DNA and, more importantly, established that the molecule existed in a helical conformation. It is well known that Wilkins showed the so-called “photograph 51” to Watson, who actually learned about X-ray diffraction techniques while working at the Cavendish Laboratory. It was this X-ray photograph that helped him and Crick elaborate a valid DNA structure. Their results were published in 1953 without any mention whatsoever of Franklin –in fact the real artifice of the definite study of the DNA structure. Forgotten by her “respectable” colleagues, Franklin died in 1958 of cancer which might have been caused by exposition to radiation in her laboratory.

With the DNA structure in hand, Dio-Tech launched his all-out conquest of heavens with a clear objective of ascending the throne. However, the results of the DNA investigation turned out to be devastating for the theory of evolution. Much to its discoverers’ displeasure, DNA became a demolishing proof that there has been no evolution in nature, not even in a single of its elements. A group of investigators known under the name The Intelligent Design made it absolutely clear that the complexity of the cell, which is beyond human imagination, cannot have originated by causality or spontaneity.

The first thing we discover when looking at DNA is its codified text structure. Any text containing information of some kind must come from an intelligent entity. If, in addition, this information is so complex that it governs the functioning of all systems within the human body, including how to build it, we are faced with the absurdity of having to recognize that a few nitrogenous bases have not only designed the extremely complex human body but have also informed every one of its cells about the details of their function and the way to carry it out. This absurd can only be dissipated by admitting that an intelligent entity, in this case intelligence non plus ultra, has inscribed all this information in the DNA.

However, evolutionists had another card up their sleeve –“junk” DNA. In fact, already the choice of name defines intellectual stature of those who have coined it. According to them, most of DNA had no purpose, being merely remnants of previous processes on the evolutionary scale that demonstrate continuous transformation of the cellular structure. Bad luck again –the ENCODE project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) has discovered that “junk” DNA is in fact essential. The project has been run under the management of the National Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in the USA and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in the United Kingdom. It coordinated research of 442 scientists in 32 laboratories in the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland and Spain.

The so-called “junk” DNA (eventually upgraded to “noncoding” DNA) which until then was thought to have no use whatsoever (except that of supporting the theory of evolution), has turned out to be an essential element within the human genome, functioning as a huge control panel with millions of “switches” that regulate the whole of the genetic activity. Without these switches genes would not work, the fact which would result in mutations and diseases. The ENCODE research provided the information needed to see beyond the linear structure of the genome and perceive connections of the entire network. The ENCODE project resulted in a detailed map of the genome function and identified four million gene switches. Ewan Birnay, project analysis coordinator, commented:

Our genome only works thanks to these switches: millions of places that determine whether a gene is turned on or off. We have found that a surprisingly large part of the genome is involved not only with producing proteins but with controlling when and where they are produced. Due to the complex three-dimensional structure of our genome, these controls are often far away from the gene they regulate if we read the sequence lineally, although if done from a three-dimensional perspective, they are seen to be wrapped around it so that contact between them is possible. We have looked deep into the circuit of regulations which demonstrates how all its parts act together to create a complex identity.

Thus the human genome is an incredibly complex system of switches that activate and deactivate genes according to patterns that man does not know nor can imagine. It is not just a matter of statistics that perhaps powerful algorithmic systems could solve, but of the fact that man cannot interfere with Creator’s plan. We are on the outside and what we see is functional reflections of the operating system which has created and controls the human genetic program and which we cannot access. We cannot manipulate cellular genetic structure without causing damages that will result in diseases and undesired mutations. Creation is a closed book whose operational aspects cannot be altered.

Just how irresponsible is the practice of scientists working on genetic manipulation projects for large pharmaceutical and military consortiums, disguised as research whose purpose is to find cure for serious diseases, can be seen from conflicting data on this research. Initially enthusiastic, giving the impression that death has just been defeated into non-existence, soon to be dismissed as dangerous and impracticable. In the first article dated July 6, 2018, the editing tool CRISPR/Cas9 is highly praised, while the second, July 17, 2018, clearly points to the dangers of using it.

(RT, 6 July 2018) Pioneering research in genetics could help diagnose and cure infantile cancer


Scientists are one step closer to diagnosing and treating aggressive childhood cancer, as researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center have identified genetic changes that fuel its growth. According to the study, the discovery was made possible as the result of a new approach to analyzing genes. The study suggests that researchers used the revolutionary iExCN algorithm, which combines Bayesian analysis, a method for statistical inference, and CRISPR/Cas9, a relatively new and experimental gene-editing tool that screens and verifies the statistical predictions. This groundbreaking discovery suggests new possibilities for diagnosis and potential treatments of this aggressive type of tumor. Furthermore, Dr Skapek suggested that their unique research method represented a “general approach” that could pave the way for future studies “to identify oncogenic drivers and tumor-suppressor genes in other cancer types.” It will be a significant step forward, which is sure to offer some hope to families affected by cancer.

(statnews/in the lab, 16 July 2018) Potential DNA damage from CRISPR has been ‘seriously underestimated,’ study finds.


From the earliest days of the CRISPR-Cas9 era, scientists have known that the first step in how it edits genomes, snipping DNA, creates an unholy mess: Cellular repairmen frantically try to fix the cuts by throwing random chunks of DNA into the breach and deleting other random bits. Research published on Monday suggests that’s only the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg: CRISPR-Cas9 can cause significantly greater genetic havoc than experts thought, the study concludes, perhaps enough to threaten the health of patients who would one day receive CRISPR-based therapy. The DNA chaos that CRISPR unleashes has been “seriously underestimated,” said geneticist Allan Bradley of England’s Wellcome Sanger Institute, who led the study. “This should be a wake-up call.”

One of the favorite strategies of Dio-Tech is the semantic bombardment of the media  in agreement with the proverb “if you throw enough mud, some sticks”. Every time the results of a rigorous study are published that go against the theory of evolution, the mainstream media frenetically respond by publishing comments which lack argumentative basis, but which try to discard both the research and its results. They have in their favour the fact that most people do not follow the results of any particular research, do not understand its terminology and end up accepting the “reality” presented to them. Also, because the general public likes to be deceived into the belief that very soon death will be put out of her misery.

Dio-Tech gives himself a rope, a very short one because the subject of mutations has for a long time been depriving him of sleep. It is not only a question of whether they are or can be beneficial. The issue is much more complex than that as it encompasses a general concept of existence. Mutations have to be necessarily malignant and destructive because each element of creation is perfect in itself and, therefore, the smallest change that occurs in its genetic structure must be degenerative. When perfection gets modified what necessarily emerges is imperfection. What DNA does, among millions of other functions, is to guarantee, precisely, that there be no mutations. It sees any deviation from or mutation of its code as something to be rejected and it reacts by enacting the programmed death of cells. If the “modified” DNA passes on to next generations, the result will be their weakening. Thus mutations do not have the capacity to originate a new species, they only corrupt DNA –something totally undesired.

The term “adaptation” has turned out to be even more embarrassing to Dio-Tech since adapting or feeling the need to adapt can only take place in an intelligent conscious being. An animal or a plant has no awareness of death or the concept of being alive. They do not feel or think that it is better to live than to die, they simply develop their existential program without ever entertaining the idea of ​​changing it. On the other hand, if adaptation is made without the desire or will of the animal or plant, what in that animal or plant decides to adapt? What cell, what organ takes on that responsibility? The matter gets even more naive than that since the adaptation of complex animals would require very long periods of time, and thus the given species would die out long before it could be achieved.

Although the inability to demonstrate how life could have originated in a way spontaneous is a fundamental weakness of Darwinian theory of evolution, it is not the only one. Another example is the fossil record. Evolutionists organize fossils according to a tree-like pattern with a single stem at the bottom and many branches at the top to suggest how later forms might have developed from the previous ones. If this hypothesis were true, we would see very few life forms in the first layers of fossils, with only minute differences between them. However, exactly the opposite is the case.


A simplified Tree of Life summarising the evolutionary relationships among a broad selection of living organisms.

Despite having so much scientifically reasonable evidence against him, Dio-Tech, although somewhat disturbed, does not seem to be losing it; after all he has the entire Akademia on his side. Furthermore, what really counts is what is taught in schools, and the fact is that what is taught in schools never changes. Next year’s textbooks will not mention Wells, Weismann, Anderson, Behe ​​or Pennisi. They will not mention the results obtained by the ENCODE project or research results on CRISPR. They will teach what the educational system deems worthy of teaching.

And there we are –worried and even ashamed. It is said that Darwin once mentioned the fact that “to talk of evolution is like confess to a murder”, but the strength of the image that we reproduce below, which has accompanied us since childhood sometimes without any explanation, merely the image, is so strong that it silences everything else, including reason.


Thus according to Dio-Tech, who hasn’t the first idea of the origin of life or its “evolution”, humanity has reached the stage of Homo. He maintains that about 100,000 years ago Earth was inhabited by several specimens of the type, such as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo neanderthalensis… it cannot be discarded that a new specimen might have emerged since the last time we looked at the list. Today science speaks mostly of Homo sapiens, that is of us –the wise man, and of the Neanderthal –a concept that emerged from 16 pieces of bones found in 1856 in the Neander Valley, near Dusseldorf, present-day Germany.

Let us imagine for a moment that someone between 40 and 50 years of age, encouraged by the news about this or that anthropological finding, which usually comes with a magic touch and a striking headline, tries to refresh his knowledge on the subject. After all, it is an exciting subject. How did we get here? Are we really as sapiens as we think we are? Why are we here and so many others are in other places, the Amazon included? If we have all originated in Africa, and then abandoned it, how come Africa is still populated? How come some Homo sapiens are white? Who was that elusive Neanderthal, the symbol of brute force and stupidity as we once studied at school, but who according to recent findings has painted in a surprising way numerous caves all over the world (not that it can be explained how he did it)? This inquisitive individual mentioned above tries to organize the information with the help of a “good” encyclopedia.

It should be mentioned here that after the 1856 discovery Dio-Tech was not sure if the Neanderthal skeleton represented the remains of an archaic and extinct human or an abnormal modern human. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Neanderthal:

The first opinion proved correct in 1886, when two Neanderthal skeletons associated with Middle Paleolithic stone tools and bones of extinct animals were discovered in a cave in Spy, Belgium.

And yet, at no place later in the article is it explained why this association became the evidence that the first opinion was the correct one –a trick widely used by all encyclopedias: state the case, avoid presenting arguments, move on to the next paragraph. Idem:

From shortly after the Spy discovery to about 1910, a series of Neanderthal skeletons were discovered in western and central Europe. Using those skeletons as a basis, scholars reconstructed the Neanderthals as semi-human, lacking a full upright posture and being somewhat less intelligent than modern humans. According to that view, the Neanderthals were intermediate between modern humans and the apes, as no older human forms were then generally recognized. Only after World War II were the errors in this perception of Neanderthals recognized, and the Neanderthals have since come to be viewed as quite close evolutionarily to modern humans.

Although “intermediate between modern humans and the apes” they were only “less intelligent” than modern humans. One can’t help wondering what parameters were used to determine their intelligence.

We estimate that between 1856 and the end of World War II about a billion people (probably more) took with them to their graves this erroneous view of the Neanderthal and to a large degree of themselves. Idem:

This latter view has been reflected in the frequent inclusion of the Neanderthals within the species Homo sapiens, usually as a distinct subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis; more recently they have often been classified as a different but closely related species, Homo neanderthalensis. The Neanderthals are now known from several hundred individuals, represented by remains varying from isolated teeth to virtually complete skeletons. 

As you can see much classification and declassification goes on in paleontology, and there’s more bad news. Idem:

The picture of the relationships between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens grew more complex in 2010 after announcements that teams of researchers had produced a draft sequence of a Neanderthal nuclear DNA genome –that is, the genome derived from genetic material in the cell’s nucleus. 

Don’t be surprised, dear unknown investigator. Science has many problems and they always tend to grow more complex. You haven’t seen anything yet. Anyway, this investigation clearly pointed to the fact that there has been, dare we say it, interbreeding between the two “species”, which means that the Neanderthal were perfectly “human”. Idem:

The most reasonable scenario hypothesizes gene flow from Neanderthals to H. sapiens, but it still allows that the reverse also might have occurred. Natural selection might have acted on the genes of ancestral H. sapiens, producing particular metabolic processes, cognition, and skeletal development. In addition, natural selection might have caused the expression of Neanderthal traits in H. sapiens to be eliminated or suppressed or both.

The term “natural selection”, added to the already existing ones such as “nature” and “instinct”, made it apparently possible for science to explain the inexplicable. What is, after all, nature? What is instinct? Where is it? Is it science we are taking about or legends of the ancients? Whichever angle you choose to look at it, selection means “general plan”, “intelligence” to discriminate between what is good, what is bad and what is better. For this to be accomplished a scale of values is necessary to discriminate among the millions of possibilities that arise in each alleged evolutionary process. It also implies technical means to carry out such a process and a strong will to maintain the evolution project for millions of years. Admittedly, we are talking about God. Idem:

The idea that Neanderthals and H. sapiens interbred with one another received additional support in 2011. Research conducted by British biologist Peter Parham and colleagues uncovered evidence that certain alleles (differing forms of genes) of Neanderthals and other archaic human groups shaped the immune systems of modern humans with non-African ancestries. In addition, Polish-born Canadian biologist Damian Labuda and his team discovered that a region of the human X chromosome known as dys44 (part of the dystrophin gene) is present in 9 percent of all modern human populations outside of Africa and contains a haplotype, B006, that came from interbreeding with Neanderthals between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago.  

As always, there are more questions than answers. What or who are these “other archaic human groups”? Are there, then, groups of modern humans of non-African descent? Here we are told that the B006 came from miscegenation with the Neanderthals between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago. How do we match this information with the one that states that “the age of the common ancestor between individuals with mitochondrial DNA of Neandertal and modern human mtDNA goes back to 690,000 and 550,000 years?”


A diagram of early and main human migrations.

Miscegenation was not the only discovery in the 2011 research. It was discovered that the Neanderthal man, just as Homo sapiens, possessed the FOXP2 gene, which is the gene believed to “give individuals the ability to speak and produce language.”

How do those discoveries compare with the Neanderthal images we are familiar with?


Even the wisest people need to rectify, but why the talk about “scientific method”? Shouldn’t science at least apologize for having misled us for such a long time?


New Neanderthal look, according to the latest findings.

The Neanderthal has become a nightmare for Dio-Tech and his evolutionists. When it seemed fairly clear, at long last, that dates, origins, migratory routes, cerebral capacity and other archaeological components had already been successfully fitted into their evolutionary tree, there appear like a bolt from a blue sky cave paintings –radically ancient and scattered all over the world, but we shall focus here on Spain:

International team of archaeologists found paintings in three caves in different parts of Spain to be more than 64,000 years old, that is painted 20,000 years before modern humans arrived in Europe. Obviously, this means that the paintings were made by the Neanderthals, the only humanoid inhabitants known in Europe at that time. Dr. Chris Standich, coauthor of the study and archaeologist at the University of Southampton is of this opinion. His team is absolutely convinced that the paintings are symbolic representations and not just pigment spots on the wall. The same opinion is held by Dr. Dirk Hoffmann of the Max Planck Institute. The three caves contain red and black paintings of groups of animals, points and geometric signs, as well as drawings of hands. Professor Paul Pettit, of the University of Durham, said:

The fact that a similar material comes from three caves in northern, central and southern Spain, from more than 65,000 years ago, shows that it was a deliberate part of their symbolic cultural repertoire. They are making deliberate decisions about where to put them. On the other hand it is normal that they are found deep inside the caves since they clearly have a ritual purpose.

Why would they paint deep inside the caves? How would they light those depths? How would they get there? How would they make their pigments there? If they had “a ritual purpose”, shouldn’t paintings be situated within everybody’s easy access? Indeed, the science of speleology must have been particularly well developed 65,000 years ago. Just look what they have to go through today:

According to Professor Joao Zilhao, from the University of Barcelona, ​​”the findings pave the way for a more detailed look at our human ancestor.”

If that was not enough in terms of incongruities, Sarah Kaplan had something to add, and she did by publishing her article “Scientists Discover the Oldest Human Fossils Outside of Africa” (National Geographic, 25 January 2018):

Part of an upper jaw with teeth found in Israel shows that modern humans ventured out of Africa much earlier than previously thought. The find adds to evidence that our species was overlapping with human relatives such as Neanderthals in the crossroads of the Levant for longer than previously realized. Until recently, the fossil record suggested that our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared in East Africa around 200,000 years ago. While a larger wave of migration didn’t leave the continent until 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, small numbers of modern humans made forays outside of Africa as far back as 120,000 years ago, based on the known fossils. Then, last June, research on fossils from a site called Jebel Irhoud in Morocco turned conventional wisdom on its head: Those modern-looking humans are up to 350,000 years old, scientists discovered, pushing back the early origins of our species. The new Middle Eastern discovery, detailed today in Science, complements the Moroccan find by showing that Homo sapiens were also taking initial steps into Eurasia much earlier—around 180,000 years ago.

The above is the parlance whose aim is to explain what cannot be explained. With every tooth found dates are constantly “pushed back” and “conventional wisdom is turned on its head”. What about professional wisdom? Exactly the same. We wonder if with so many new bones and jaws popping up here and there and everywhere there is at all a paleontologist who is still updated. Let’s see –Homo sapiens appeared in east Africa 200,000 years ago and already 80,000 years later “ventured”, at least some advanced specimens, to colonize the world. Then it turns out thanks to Morocco than Homo sapiens is actually 350,000 years old. The new discovery shows that Homo sapiens actually arrived in Euroasia much “earlier than previously thought”, which means that he departed from east Africa only 20,000 years after it appeared there. The only possible comment, not particularly scientific –“mind-bending”. Below we reproduce an official map, one of them to be precise, of human migration according to science. We’re still working on how and where Kaplan’s findings fit into it (if at all).


In our opinion, the problem does not lie in advancing the timeline or making it recede, but in giving a coherent form to the fossil record and the theories it originates. What will happen with the timeline when another jaw or tooth of some individual of our species is found somewhere unexpected and its dating shows that they are 250,000 years old? How is it going to affect the map of migrations? How are we going to determine the relationships between the hominids, the archaic and the modern human populations? With what “scientific” rigour will the “experts” explain it to us? Don’t they really feel embarrassed to receive their salaries each month for simply telling us every five years that they have been mistaken?

What should come first is the theory, then the findings. If there is no notice board on which to pin notices, those will have to be thrown into a drawer or left scattered around. Yet, on what knowledge or sources can modern archaeologists or paleontologists build a unified general theory? Can a subject of Dio-Tech’s ever carry out such a momentous task? So they laugh while they pick up their pay-checks and firmly believe that their names already shine in some archeological hall of fame.

For us the matter smells like a long dead rat. We have a jaw with 8 teeth on it that due to their scrupulosity the archaeologists took 10 years to date and analyze! It must have been very dusty when it finally got under their microscopes. Clearly, something fishy is going on.

Meanwhile The New York Times announced on July 19, 2017 in the article by Nicholas St. Fleur entitled “Humans First Arrived in Australia 65,000 Years Ago, Study Suggests”. It is a relevant topic because the way human “migrations” would have been carried out is never mentioned. This is what we read:

The timing of the first arrival of humans in Australia has been studied and debated for decades. Now, researchers have found evidence that suggests the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians landed in the northern part of Australia at least 65,000 years ago. Previous archaeological digs and dating had suggested people migrated to Australia between 47,000 and 60,000 years ago. But a new excavation at an aboriginal rock shelter called Madjedbebe revealed human relics that dated back 65,000 years.

The finding, which was published Wednesday in the journal Nature, pushes back the timing of when people first came to the continent by about 5,000 to 18,000 years. It also suggests that humans coexisted with colossal Australian animals like giant wombats and wallabies long before the mega-fauna went extinct. “It puts to bed the whole idea that humans wiped them out,” said Dr. Clarkson. “We’re talking 20,000 to 25,000 years of coexistence.”

How is this particular finding, which pushes back the timing of when people first arrived there, to be fitted into the general timeline, in which so many events have already been pushed back? While we make partial time lines, separate for each finding in each field of investigation, we have the deceptive impression that everything is in place. However, when we try to draw a general timeline on a cardboard of, say, 1m x 2m everything collapses, because it is when we have to take into account that Spanish and French rock paintings have been dated to be 90,000 years old and that the long-standing theory of the extinction of Australian mega-fauna by humans has just been put to bed. Let’s see now the practical consequences of all these findings within the general human timeline.

The first question that arises is who painted the caves found in France and Spain. It does seem obvious that there are only two possibilities: the Neanderthal or the Homo sapiens. If we accept the first possibility as certain, we will necessarily have to concede that the Neanderthal people had geological and metallurgical knowledge as well as artistic and symbolic capacity that will not develop anywhere on Earth earlier than 20,000 years from our present time. On the other hand, we must take into account that between 20,000 to 10,000 BC these techniques are still rudimentary and are developed only in the Middle East –on both sides of the Red Sea and up to the present-day Iraq and the Persian Gulf. They will not reach the rest of the world until much later. (Mesopotamia had the knowledge of skin tanning as early as 2,500 BC, while in Europe this technique will not be known until 3rd century BC and fully practiced only in 1st century AD). Thus, we keep wondering who painted those caves.

The Spanish archaeologist Carla Álvarez Romero in her article “The Pigments in Prehistory; Project of Thermal Experimentation with Iron Oxides and Hydroxides” (Bulletin of Experimental Archeology Number 9, 2012) recognizes that the minerals with which she and her team pretended to reproduce the scenario in which the “primitive men” would have made their cave drawings had been obtained in specialized stores given the fact that, as she admits, “we did not have the geological knowledge nor did we know how to recognize where these minerals could be found,” which makes one wonder what she and her team actually reproduced.

Therefore, if we decide that the first possibility, that of the Neanderthal, is the correct one, we will not only have to change the general and partial chronology, but will also have to eliminate the term Neanderthal and speak of man not equal in cognitive capacity to Homo sapiens, but far superior to him since that man was able to extract minerals that XXI century archaeologists cannot even recognize, much less extract. That man would have recognized them, extracted them, processed them and have heated them to 500 degrees centigrade to obtain different tonalities without the need for electric muffles (which the researchers led by Álvarez Romero had to use).

Who then painted those caves? If the second option, that of Homo sapiens, is the winning candidate, we have an additional problem since that would mean that Homo sapiens arrived in Western Europe more than 100,000 years ago. According to specialists, the Homo sapiens left Africa and travelled to Europe via the Middle East, crossing Anatolia and central Europe until he arrived in present-day France and Spain, which amounts to roughly the distance of 9,600 km. The question why the Homo sapiens would have left Africa, a place with abundant water and natural foods, with a climate that can be described as optimal and would have traversed deserts, rivers and inhospitable mountain ranges clearly annuls any classification, any timeline and any theory about the existence of human beings on planet Earth.

But imagine for a moment that those Homo sapiens, possessed by a mysterious force, undertake the journey just mentioned, say, a group of 50 individuals, men, women and children, no livestock, because it still does not exist. Livestock, domestication of herd animals, is no more than 40,000 years old. This small group begins the inexplicable march towards the Atlantic coasts. How long would it take them to accomplish this feat? In the best of cases we would be talking about at least ten generations, which would imply about 350 years. This would mean a daily route of about 30 km. Not likely. They would have to make long stops for food and water. Surely they would have encountered hostile populations with which they would have to fight (the “local archaic men” mentioned by Encyclopaedia Britannica). The most logical scenario would be their total extinction before even reaching Anatolia.

But let’s persist and continue imagining, and imagine that they managed to overcome all those obstacles and reach the European Atlantic coast. We will have to add 30 or 40 more generations. That is to say, for this trip to take place, it would have been necessary for this group to maintain for 50 generations their objective, that of reaching Spain, and the determination to continue at any cost. Even imagining all this, we feel unable to imagine why they would have made that useless and obviously impossible trip. Even a modern human individual will travel such a distance only in case of an interesting job proposal, with a plane ticket in hand, a bank account and a contract. Obviously he will move to a known place. The Renaissance man was adventurous, but again, he made long trips, ocean voyages included, with a map in hand, compasses or astrolabes and with a well-defined objective. What shall we say, then, of a human group living 100,000 years ago? What knowledge did they have about terrestrial geography? What means of orientation? What did they suppose they would find after having travelled thousands of kilometers? How did they manage to maintain this intention for at least 50 generations?

If the Neanderthal were the authors of the cave paintings, we would be forced to change all classifications of human beings and of their predecessors made so far. If, on the other hand, the Homo sapiens authored the paintings, we would be forced to change drastically the whole chronology established so far. In both cases, these changes would generate chaos in the interpretations of the origin of man as well as in the nature and characteristics of human migration as presented by official investigation.

Another consequence mentioned in the quotes above is the arrival of the Neanderthal or the Homo sapiens in Australia. In the map below we see three possible routes that our intrepid ancestors would have followed after their departure from Africa until their arrival in Australia.


The first route, marked with a red arrow, would imply a trek across the African land of more than 1000 km and construction of a ship capable of sailing about 7,000 km on the high seas. The vessels that come anywhere close to these requirements date back only 7,000 years. Remains of caulked wood have been found on the Arabian cornice of the Persian Gulf. However, it is thought that they were not yet able to enter ocean waters. The second route, marked with purple arrows, would involve a distance of 11,600 km plus long distances by land and, again, construction of ships capable of sailing oceanic waters. The third route is marked with orange lines. This route would have covered 15,300 km, across all of Asia, and still require navigation of hundreds of kilometers by sea to reach Australia.

If investigators were at all prepared to assume simple but evident hypotheses, they would surely arrive at a conclusion that the natives of each place, the “local archaic populations”, have always been there. They are the children of Mother Earth. They emerged from it in Australia, Africa, Europe, Americas, almost everywhere. They never moved, except when making short incursions into the adjoining territories. The great expansion of the human being took place in the time of Sulayman, around 6,000 years ago. The native local populations were the bashar, the prototype of the human species. They originated from seeds, dispersed all over Earth. Later they will be updated to their final version, insan, at a centre situated somewhere in Arabia. This was followed by local expansions, until the last one –the expansion in times of Sulayman (Solomon) that reached the four quarters of the world. Sulayman had under his control the yinn –powerful creatures endowed with consciousness and cognitive abilities, much as the human being. Those creates were originated from fire, which does not mean they were fire, just as ice, whose origin is water, is not the same as water; it is merely another condition or state of water. Some of the yinn could travel at the speed of light, so to speak. Others could fly and others could lift extremely heavy loads. It was they who painted the caves of Spain, France, Central Europe, Australia, Indonesia, Americas… It was they who built the pyramids and the ziggurats, who erected megalithic monuments weighing thousands of tons, who inscribed on earth giant geometric and animal signs –a system of signalization that survives to this day as an accurate guide to the settlements of Sulayman and his hosts, and an indication of their presence in the past. The complete process as we propose it could be resumed as follows:

MINERAL REGISTER: volcanic activity, basic platform


VEGETAL REGISTER: photosynthesis-nutrition

ANIMAL REGISTER: animal regulators/domestic animals

HUMAN REGISTER: bashar/update to insan; Sulayman’s expansion

The news about discoveries in every possible field of investigation is indeed never-ending. On February 16, 2010 an article by John Noble Wilford was published in The New York Times under the title “On Crete New Evidence of Very Ancient Marines”:

Early humans, possibly even pre-human ancestors, appear to have been going to sea much longer than anyone had ever suspected. That is the startling implication of discoveries made the last two summers on the Greek island of Crete. Stone tools found there, archaeologists say, are at least 130,000 years old, which is considered strong evidence for the earliest known seafaring in the Mediterranean and cause for rethinking the maritime capabilities of pre-human cultures.

Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat. So this seems to push the history of Mediterranean voyaging back more than 100,000 years, specialists in Stone Age archaeology say. Previous artifact discoveries had shown people reaching Cyprus, a few other Greek islands and possibly Sardinia no earlier than 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

The oldest established early marine travel anywhere was the sea-crossing migration of anatomically modern Homo sapiens to Australia, beginning about 60,000 years ago. There is also a suggestive trickle of evidence, notably the skeletons and artifacts on the Indonesian island of Flores, of more ancient hominids making their way by water to new habitats. Even more intriguing, the archaeologists who found the tools on Crete noted that the style of the hand axes suggested that they could be up to 700,000 years old. That may be a stretch, they conceded, but the tools resemble artifacts from the stone technology known as Acheulean, which originated with prehuman populations in Africa.

In the article above we find two basic errors that archaeologists and historians readily commit. As we have already seen, arriving in Australia from Africa 60,000 years ago along one of the three possible routes was an impossible trip. Before 40,000 BC there was no fire control, no caulking, no boat building, no trade, no livestock, no agriculture, no pottery. All these techniques belong to the insan.  The second error is that of granting man who lived 60,000 years ago the urge to travel, open up new horizons, trade and exchange products, imagine the world and to want to colonize, all that being typical of the insan. Simply put, these feelings and concepts did not exist in the cognitive structure of the bashar.

Geofacts –natural stone formations // Stone tools, thus artifacts according to investigators, found on Crete are for them “evidence of early sea voyages”

Even more intriguing is the fact that the archaeologists who found the tools on Crete noticed that the style of hand axes (if hand axes they are) suggested that they could be up to 700,000 years old. That might be branded as daring, they admitted, but the tools resemble the artifacts of “stone technology” known as Acheulean, which originated with pre-human populations in Africa.  It is an incongruity to join the term “technology” to the term “pre-human”. The bashar are not “pre-human”, they are human. However, they were not in need of any “technology”. They emerged from inside the earth in places where temperate climate prevailed, which allowed them to live in the nude. Their settlements in jungle and forest areas, near rivers and in coastal areas, provided them with the food they needed –fruits, vegetables, fish, mollusks and mushrooms. It is possible that they developed some sort of lesser type of hunting at the end of the bashar period and that they used the viscera of their prey, soft and highly nutritious, as food. As for the 2,000 artifacts, they are not such, but rather geofacts –natural stone formations.

The Plakias survey team went in looking for material remains of more recent artisans, nothing older than 11,000 years. Such artifacts would have been blades, spear points and arrowheads typical of Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. “We found those, then we found the hand axes,” Dr. Strasser said last week in an interview, and that sent the team into deeper time. “We were flummoxed,” Dr. Runnels said in an interview. “These things were just not supposed to be there.”

They were not there. There was no insan 130,000 years ago and, therefore, there was no civilization, lithic “technology” or any other kind of technology.

Word of the find is circulating among the ranks of Stone Age scholars. The few who have seen the data and some pictures — most of the tools reside in Athens — said they were excited and cautiously impressed. The research, if confirmed by further study, scrambles timetables of technological development and textbook accounts of human and pre-human mobility.

However, nothing, take our word for it, will be confirmed and this “discovery” will be simply cast into the basket containing other unverified findings that no one will ever attempt to verify seriously. New dates and dating will be provided and everything will remain pending later verification, which will never materialize.

Dr. Runnels, who has 30 years’ experience in Stone Age research, said that an analysis by him and three geologists “left not much doubt of the age of the site, and the tools must be even older.” The cliffs and caves above the shore, the researchers said, have been uplifted by tectonic forces where the African plate goes under and pushes up the European plate. The exposed uplifted layers represent the sequence of geologic periods that have been well studied and dated, in some cases correlated to established dates of glacial and interglacial periods of the most recent ice age. In addition, the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.

However, we are not talking about the soil or the sedimentary layers of the African plate or how they respond to tectonic movements, but about the alleged tools manufactured by certain pre-humans, we do not know where or when, and then brought to Crete. According to Bar-Yosef, we still don’t know anything in particular: “Once the researchers provide the dates, we will have a better understanding of the importance of the discovery,” he says. And yet, both the dating and the importance of the discovery have already been taken for granted and published.

Dr. Runnels said he considered this a minimum age for the tools themselves. They include not only quartz hand axes, but also cleavers and scrapers, all of which are in the Acheulean style. The tools could have been made millenniums before they became, as it were, frozen in time in the Cretan cliffs, the archaeologists said. Dr. Runnels suggested that the tools could be at least twice as old as the geologic layers. Dr. Strasser said they could be as much as 700,000 years old. Further explorations are planned this summer. The 130,000-year date would put the discovery in a time when Homo sapiens had already evolved in Africa, sometime after 200,000 years ago. Their presence in Europe did not become apparent until about 50,000 years ago.

If the presence of Homo sapiens did not become evident until about 50,000 years ago, it would mean that those who brought these artifacts did not come from the European continent, say, from the current Greece. They would have come from Africa or the Middle East. In any case we are talking about hundreds of kilometers by sea.

The closest part of the African continent is at a distance of 350 km from Crete; from the coast of Syria we have 150 km to Cyprus, and from there about 500 km to Crete. To travel these distances would require caulked and very well made boats. This on the assumption that those men knew that there was such an island and its exact location. In this case, they would need to be familiar with offshore orientation techniques. It seems entirely out of the question from whatever angle you look at it. However, the main cause of our refusal to accept such assumptions is that 130,000 years ago there was no insan in any part of the world, only the bashar, who did not navigate, did not move away from their natural habitat. The supposition is being presented here to the public as fact. There is no-one to question those “facts”, perhaps because no-one has actually enough knowledge about the issue at hand, not even the journalists who write about it. Thus the investigators take the floor and there’s nobody to ask the pertinent questions them, in part because everybody involved is interested in maintaining the materialistic fairy tale.

Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus. The standard hypothesis had been that Acheulean toolmakers reached Europe and Asia via the Middle East, passing mainly through what is now Turkey into the Balkans. The new finds suggest that their dispersals were not confined to land routes. They may lend credibility to proposals of migrations from Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar to Spain. Crete’s southern shore where the tools were found is 200 miles from North Africa.

Yet, there were no migrations. Pre-insan populations were very small. If these groups had begun to emigrate, how many individuals would have remained in the place from which the movement originated? Moreover, how many individuals would have started emigration? Let us suppose that several groups of about 30 members each abandon their habitat and from Africa go to Turkey. Obviously, they did not know that Turkey existed, much less the Balkans, so most of them would have stopped over on the road and settle in what is now Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen and Arabia. Maybe other groups would have gone as far as Egypt and Libya. However, suppose that a few individuals did reach Anatolia, how many of those individuals would have continued on their way to the Balkans? One, two, several? It is incomprehensible that apparently intelligent people are able to present such interpretations as man’s history. It is enough to imagine step by step the possible scenarios that would have been generated in the event such migration existed, to immediately see that it is impossible for something like that to happen. A simple question may serve as a strong argument: Why at all would they have moved from their habitat and have headed towards the unknown? Who would be prepared to do such a thing? The bashar have emerged from earth in places conducive to their existence –temperate climates, abundant natural foods and water from springs or rivers; in many cases, near seas or large lakes.

“We can’t say the toolmakers came 200 miles from Libya,” Dr. Strasser said. “If you’re on a raft, that’s a long voyage, but they might have come from the European mainland by way of shorter crossings through Greek islands.” But archaeologists and experts on early nautical history said the discovery appeared to show that these surprisingly ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts. They also must have had the cognitive ability to conceive and carry out repeated water crossing over great distances in order to establish sustainable populations producing an abundance of stone artifacts.

The last paragraph is truly disheartening. Who are you talking about? About pre-humans who “establish sustainable populations” by producing “abundance of stone artifacts”? If that had been the case, it would mean that there had been continuous maritime traffic on the Mediterranean for at least 130,000 years –thousands of boats plying its waters, even tens of thousands. However, not a single trace of them is available to us, not a single piece of tarred wood. Only geofacts that are forcibly attributed by investigators to pre-humans and that dislocate all the previous dates and all the classifications they themselves had proposed and thanks to which they have been for years on payrolls of universities and research institutes all around the world.

Every day new discoveries are made that put upside down all the dates; new bones, pyramids and mysteries are added to our knowledge, but at the same time what we learn in schools is practically always the same, imperturbable and axiomatic. Will next year’s students read about such astounding findings? Will they be prepared to analyze them? Many of these articles are accompanied by a tagline such as “a discovery that will make us re-write history.” What are you waiting for? Re-write it! Yet, can researchers paid by the Akademia carry out such a task? Are they the ones trained for it? Can those who say that man left Africa 100,000 years ago and went to China and Australia, and arrived there safe and sound, rewrite history with any rigour? The history written by Dio-Tech will always be the same.

Let’s see now what happens when Dio-Tech says something that displeases temple guardians, which sometimes happens –no system of control is perfect. Jennifer Hassan wrote in the Washington Post (February 7, 2018) an article entitled “Meet Cheddar Man: First modern Britons had dark skin and blue eyes”:

A new project from the Natural History Museum in London and the London University College has revealed innovative DNA results that give a much clearer picture of the first British inhabitants. The skeleton of Cheddar Man was discovered in 1903 in Gough’s Cave, located in Cheddar Gorge in Somerset, England. It is believed that the low temperature that reigned in the cave helped to preserve the valuable DNA of the skeleton. Using 3-D printing, Adrie and Alfons Kennis managed to bring Cheddar Man to life. The model took several months to build and is described as “truly unique.”

Professor Chris Stringer, researcher and leader of the research on human origins at the Museum of Natural History, commented:

“I studied Cheddar Man for the first time more than 40 years ago, but I never imagined that one day we would have all of its genome, the oldest of the British to date.”

The news was duly documented in press, but very soon the fury of the High Temple was unleashed and it fell implacably on Dio-Tech, all of a sudden entirely discredited. Mainstream media which initially were only reporting, suffered emotional eruption and went into the about face mood. Various social platforms experienced a meltdown. Incredibly, even some members of the research team had a change of heart.

Daily Mail, 2 March 2018

Was Cheddar Man white after all?

But now, one of the main scientists who helped create the reconstruction of his 10,000-year-old face says he may not have been black at all. Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana  University–Purdue University Indianapolis, says we simply don’t know his skin colour. While her computer model shows being black is his ‘probable profile’, DNA testing is not advanced enough to say for certain. Some, particularly on the far-right, have questioned whether there was a political agenda behind the claims.  Dr Walsh believes that the tests can’t prove Cheddar Man’s skin colour and that his DNA may have degraded over the past 10,000 years. 

New Scientist, 21 February 2018

Ancient ‘dark-skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true

A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month –including our own– stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.

DEFEND EUROPA, 22 February 2018

 “Cheddar Man” Theory Rebuffed: The Truth About Ancient Europeans

A few weeks ago, the lying media hacks were falling all over themselves to eulogise this so-called ‘new discovery’ that, as they put it, ‘the first Britons were black‘. They based this on the work of Jewish scientist Yoan Dickmann who, despite not being the first to analyse the mitochondrial DNA of the ‘Cheddar Man remains’, decided to reveal the world that England’s oldest remains were those of a dark-skinned man. There are so many things wrong with this pseudo-science that it’s difficult to know where to begin in terms of debunking it. .

If we are willing to accept that we are descended from monkeys, what importance can it have whether those monkeys lived before in Ukraine, Turkey or were Indo-European? Some are deeply molested by Cheddar Man’s looks, but have no problem accepting baboons as their ancestors. Appearances are deceptive, after all.


Is the claim that Cheddar Man was black just another stage in the propaganda war on whiteness?

I think my assertion that “It’s extremely dangerous when “science” is used to serve a political agenda!” is perfectly fair. As a picture paints a thousand words, even more powerful is the photo of the reconstructed head of Cheddar Man. This image of a very black blue-eyed man is making a very clear statement. The original inhabitants of the British Isles were black and therefore, we are nation of immigrants and anyone who criticises the European multiracial and multicultural experiment is a racist. However, as is often the case, things are not as clear cut as they might at first appear. The leftist, globalists and multiculturalists have already weaponised Cheddar Man. His image is now officially that of “The First Briton” and I’m sure the forthcoming documentary will drive the point home: The British have always been immigrants they’ll say. I beg to differ. The makeup of the British Isles and Europe has been sufficiently homogeneous for long enough to allow an indigenous cultures to develop. Speaking personally, I think that they’re well-worth preserving and will continue to do my best to do so, especially when that involves calling out politically motivated bullshit.

So –there is no way to know whether the Cheddar Man was or was not dark-skinned and blue-eyed, after all. However, the problem does not lie with leftists, multiculturalists or globalists. The problem lies in the ambiguous and incomprehensible language used to describe reality, which in fact only alters it dangerously. In Africa there are entire tribes of black people with blue eyes and even blond hair. The inhabitants of the Sulayman Islands (Isles of Solomon) have these same characteristics and completely Caucasian features –information not be found in textbooks, by the way.


Children of the Solomon Islands

Ten thousand years ago there were no Britons or Bretons, nor was there the picturesque town of Cheddar. There may have been the passage that now geologists call Doggerland, which apparently linked the continent with the Island.

The mess begins when that man –or rather, his head, born of a few milligrams of bone dust– was turned into “the first Briton”. Another relevant question can be raised here: Why in some cases the DNA evidence is unconditionally accepted and in other cases it isn’t? Didn’t the research team know that the bones may have been degraded before they started to work on them? Why did they publish their results if their techniques were not “safe”? Yet another scenario can be imagined: The irresponsible “scientists”, who are not required to be rigorous when issuing reports on their “investigations” do not care a whit about the skin color of Cheddar Man or anything at all. It is a fun game –they pave the way, rectify, push back, dislocate, scramble, re-write… and nobody cares. Such is the tyranny of the Dio-Tech Curia.

The matter of arbitrary and imaginary names is what is most urgent. If we call a black blue-eyed man from 10,000 years ago “the first Briton” and use the name “British Isles”, we immediately sink into the shifting sands of distortion and make people raise hell about it. Following that same norm, we should call the Babylonians and Sumerians –Iranians and Iraqis. Why don’t we? Why is the name “Indo-European”, discarded even by the Akademia, although under their breath, still widely used? It is an entirely meaningless term, both as a geographical name and a linguistic denomination. And let’s not talk about proto-Indo-European. These names have been invented to muddy the waters, to divert the attention of those who honestly seek to understand something of their past and to throw seekers of truth off the scent of history. Even when we know what the “local archaic” populations called themselves, we continue to use the names invented by the Akademia. Such is the case of the “Etruscans”, who called themselves rasna or raśna, but all sources use the name that the Romans gave them.


       Etruscan fresco from a tomb cover, 5th century BCE

After all the unsuccessful attempts to start life and make it evolve, Dio-Tech has serious health problems. To strengthen his immune system, a task force called “scientific divulgation” has recently been set up, provided with their specific parlance as its most lethal weaponry. Bill Bryson, who in 2003 published “A Short History of Nearly Everything”, stands out in this field although he can also write about other things, such as travel or the English language, non-fiction in general. His book, which “explores not only the histories and current statuses of the sciences, but also reveals their humble and often humorous beginnings”, has been translated into major European languages only months after its publication. In the UK only it sold 300,000 copies. Bill Bryson is the best option from the point of view of a foreign publishing house: born in the USA, resident in England. Of course he is not the only one, we have already said that it is a whole task force. Bryson himself mentions a few others –Timothy Ferris, Richard Fortey, Tim Flannery, Richard Feynman. Their strategy consists in being good at amusing, informal language with which they camouflage the fact of enunciating principles and scientific explanations which are totally absurd. He begins like this:

Welcome. And congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn’t easy, I know. In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize. To begin with, for you to be here now trillions of drifting atoms had somehow to assemble in an intricate and intriguingly obliging manner to create you. It’s an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before and will only exist this once. For the next many years (we hope) these tiny particles will uncomplainingly engage in all the billions of deft, cooperative efforts necessary to keep you intact and let you experience the supremely agreeable but generally underappreciated state known as existence. 

The general tone of the book is set by the initial quote that Bryson takes from Hans Christian Baeyer and his “Taming the Atom”:

The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: “I don’t intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God.” “Don’t you think God knows the facts?” Bethe asked. “Yes,” said Szilard. “He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts.

These are the typically shocking (witty, for some) quotes that separate us from the fact itself. If Szilard really believed in God, he would never have dared to speak the way he did, between cynical and stupid.

On the moment of creation Bryson says:

As Edward P. Tryon of Columbia University once put it: “In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things that happen from time to time.” To which adds Guth: “Although the creation of a universe might be very unlikely, Tryon emphasized that no one had counted the failed attempts.”

On the Big Bang:

In France, a chemist named Pilatre de Rozier tested the flammability of hydrogen by gulping a mouthful and blowing across an open flame, proving at a stroke that hydrogen is indeed explosively combustible and that eyebrows are not necessarily a permanent feature of one’s face.

And so on and so forth.

Also the quotes with which Bryson begins each chapter are worth mentioning.


They’re all in the same plane. They’re all going around in the same direction. . . . It’s perfect, you know. It’s gorgeous. It’s almost uncanny. (Astronomer Geoffrey Marcy describing the solar system)

The words of the renowned American astronomer convey without any dissimulation his astonishment at the overwhelming perfection of the universe. He actually finds it difficult to believe what he sees. Surely in a chat with friends he would be quite willing to admit that such a portent could not have occurred spontaneously. He might even mention the word “god”. However, none of this transpires in his comments and official publications. Prohibited! The Akademia admits any hypothesis, except that of an “external agent”; anything goes except the truth.


Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said, Let Newton be! And all was light. (Alexander Pope)

The Royal Society needed a visible head that would emanate prestige and leadership in the fields of science and politics; and if such a rare flower (rare indeed for the Europe of that time) could not be found, they were prepared to fabricate it… and there was Newton, one of the greatest historical forgeries. Most of his professional life was devoted to alchemy, esotericism, the Kabbalah and studies in Christian sects. Some researchers speak of his secret adherence to Arianism, although it seems more plausible than his alleged rejection of Rome and its dogmas, Trinity among them, rather derived from the Islamic and Unitarian currents that emerged through the work of Michael Servetus and survived in the masonry, to which Newton and other big wigs at the Society belonged.

In his book “Fraud in Science” Christopher King says:

“Another famous scientist, Isaac Newton, is under suspicion of having fabricated data to support his theories, as well as having been particularly active in discrediting his opponents.”

Not only was there falsification of data, but also copying theories and pasting them, as well as formulas and postulates extracted from the manuscripts of Muslim scholars –a compilation work that in many cases turned out to be erroneous on Newton’s part. According to the researcher Henry Lincoln, before he died, Newton, aided by some of his closest collaborators, burned numerous boxes of manuscripts and other papers. As Michael Morgan points out in his book “Lost History, National Geographic Society”:

“Newton did not discover the law of gravity by observing an apple falling from a tree, but by studying the treatises of the Iraqi Muslim Ibn al-Haytham (965-1040).”

And it was the Masonic make-up artists who fashioned him into a secular moral god, who eclipsed all history before him. Therefore, a more accurate quote would be: “The Royal Society said: ‘Let there be Newton!’ And there was fraud.”


“A physicist is the atom’s way of thinking about atoms.” (Anonymous)

Once again we encounter here the trick all materialists have always played and keep playing in order to give credibility to their scientific imposture –atoms think, cells desire, nucleotides make plans, nature knows…


The history of any one part of the Earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror. (Derek V. Ager, British geologist)

Catastrophism is the theory that the Earth had largely been shaped by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. In 1995 Derek Ager published the book entitled “The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History”, Cambridge University Press), which leads us to examine, even if succinctly, the matter of the “rare event”. The rare event is defined as a low probability event of a particular interaction of several factors. For example, if we throw 8 dice intending to get a six in each one of them, our chances of getting it will be zero. If we throw them 200 times, the probability is still insignificant, that of 1 in 10,000. However, if we increase the number of attempts to 1.7 × 106 (17 million), the probability of obtaining eight sixes reaches 63%. If our attempts reach 5 × 106 (530 million), the probability of getting 8 sixes reaches 95%. In this way, the unlikely becomes probable and eventually approaches certainty. Geologists consider that this trivial principle has applications in geology, where the stretches of time are long and the number of tests is high, influencing the dispersion of faunas and floras, alterations in evolution, meteorite impacts, the origin of life and other aspects.

However, let us point out that the proposed example is not applicable at all to the formation of Earth, to the tremendous diversity of fauna and flora and to the appearance of man, that is of intelligent life, endowed with consciousness. In this case, we would be talking about throwing 5 million dice and every time getting a six in every one of them. Now, the only thing that remains is to do some arithmetic to see how many times we would have to throw those 5 million dice to reach the 90% probability.

Roger White at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in his work entitled “Does Research on the Origins of Life Rest on an Error?” mentions  Fred Hoyle and the fact that Hoyle “would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” . Dawkins and De Duve partly focused on this example to illustrate the absurd assumption of life having appeared by chance.

Derek Ager has written several books. His opinions are sometimes quoted by passionate young people who believe in the biblical flood, for example, and see in a “rare event” the scientific proof of their beliefs. It was the reason why Ager in the Introduction to his book mentioned before made the following clarification:

“In view of the misuse that has been given to my words in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context, since nothing in it should serve to support the views of the ‘creationists’ (to whom I refuse to call ‘scientists).”

Interestingly, Ager believes it is very scientific to think that the Earth is bored, shocked and terrified, and that these psychological traumas result in evolution, dispersion of fauna and flora, and, finally –life.


The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming. (Freeman Dyson, the U.S. physicist and astrophysicist of English origin)

Where does the modern scientific class get this unscientific necessity to make matter anthropomorphic? In this particular case the Universe is presented as “someone” who has will, knowledge and a portentous plan. On other occasions it is Nature (capital letter, yes) –powerful and wise– that thinks, decides and chooses the best option. Many Akademia members are forced to admit in private that there must be an external Agent, superior to everything known to man, who has created and directed this mind-blowing creation. However, the Akademia does not allow for the term “God” to be used in any context whatsoever. It must disappear from collective memory. This is the reason why the omniscience is granted to all-powerful forces of “Nature”, which in this way is designated by science as its own particular god –object of study, venerations and source of income.


“Descendants of monkeys? Let’s hope, my dear, that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that the world will not find it out. “(Comment attributed to the bishop of Worcester’s wife after she was informed about Darwin’s theory of evolution)

Surely it is an invented anecdote, to which activity the Anglo-Saxons are so given.  No doubt they owe it to the Jewish influence that permeates the entire scientific class. However, what does seem clear is that the wife of the Bishop of Worcester was a silly woman.

According to the Introduction in his “A Brief History of Nearly Everything” Bryson “attempts to understand what happened between the Big Bang and the emergence of civilization; how we proceeded from nothing to what we are now.” His ambitious project contains a general idea –a clear insinuation that despite all difficulties and setbacks there is no alternative to Dio-Tech. More than trying to understand what happened, Bryson tries to prevent us from understanding what happened over more than 500 pages, a bibliography of 14 pages, Analytical Index of 15 pages (can’t be less, nor fewer, when one talks about nearly everything!), countless interviews and travels to exotic places (imagine the cost!) Bottom line –we still don’t know what happened. On page 456 of his book Bryson says:

The fact is, we don’t know. Don’t have any idea. We don’t know when we started doing many of the things we’ve done. We don’t know what we are doing right now or how our present actions will affect the future. What we do know is that there is only one planet to do it on, and only one species of being capable of making a considered difference.

We are aware of the fact that attacking Dio-Tech is like banging one’s head against a wall. For the feeble conscience of the man of today his technological gadgets are stronger than all the arguments that can be given against the new shamanic magic. It is useless to present and represent the degenerative process that the man of today is suffering from and which is bringing him closer to the Cheddar Man, and even further back than that.

We have done our work, but the conclusion has little to do with those lines. It is rather a piece of advice –get out of the entangled jungle of Dio-Tech and return to the revealed texts, in which clearly and concisely we are informed of all events that have conformed this Universe –and of everything else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s