Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

I fixed the bug and the broken links in WmScott's post. This bug goes all the way back to the original UBB code. The old code inserted a linefeed every 180 characters if there wasn't any intervening whitespace. Naturally this is a bad idea for URLs.The bug was only fixable for UBB codes. This is because I added UBB code parsing subroutines last fall, and so moving the truncation to this routine was easy. There is no HTML parsing code at present, and so URLs inserted with HTML instead of UBB codes are still limited to 180 characters.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Once again, I did not claim to make an identification, not this time, not the time before, not ever. I am not an expert in diatoms. I have no idea what a damaged diatom should look like. I cannot even tell diatoms from other forms of algae, as witness the last set of photos which Moose noted could easily be diatoms. I have repeated this and similar statements over and over and over again.Yet you keep claiming I made some sort of ID. Do you not understand English?Let me explain this one last time. I orginally said your photo was of poor quality and could resemble many things. A large proportion of microrganisms are probably round with splines, so most recently I posted some more pictures of round microrganisms with splines. This is consistent and in keeping with my earlier picture of Asteromphalus heptactis, where I also was not attempting to make an identification, but was just pointing out the ambiguity in your own ID by providing a picture of something else your photo also vaguely resembled. I spent all of five minutes finding that picture, and I didn't even look at any fresh water diatoms, and I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species. Your diatom has two splines. Did it loose five splines? Ten splines? Twenty splines? Whatever your answer, how do you know?About the only support you can find from me is that I think your photo bears a better vague resemblance to the diatom I found than the one you found. But it's still a vague resemblance, and I would never claim I made an ID based on such a poor resemblance. And since I believe in consensus (more about this later), I wouldn't believe I'd made a proper ID until it had been confirmed and agreed to by others.Moving on to a more significant topic, you've apparently failed to consider one of the primary forms of diatom distribution: ground transport. Apparently marine diatoms are distributed by rail, by truck, by car, by cow and even by International Harvester. Almost a couple weeks ago an email arrived describing the various uses of diatomaceous material. I don't know why the author didn't post it him/herself, but s/he offered it to me to use. I replied encouraging the author to post the material him/herself, but now I think I've waited long enough, and so I include it here unchanged except for formatting and spelling:

​ Dear Mr. Percipient, ​ I have noticed your discussion on the Evolution Versus Creation Board. I thought that I might add a couple of comments about the dispersal of diatoms in the messages at: ​ http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II ​ One factor in the dispersion of diatoms that Mr. wmscott seems to have overlooked is that within modern times humans have become a very active agent in the dispersion of diatoms. ​ The fact of the matter is that diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth. ​ For example, diatomite is also used in soundproofing. The breakage of soundproofing material whenever buildings are constructed and demolished contribute diatoms to the environment. similarly, diatomite is used as a filler in pints and plastics. when these paints and plastics degrade, they release diatoms into the environment. ​ A major use of diatomite is in the horticultural/agricultural markets. In agriculture, diatomite has been mixed in with soil as a soil conditioner and potting mix. Also, diatomite is used as a filler and anti-caking agent in fertilizer and pesticides. As a result, diatomite is deliberately spread over soils to improve them causing diatoms to be mixed within them. Also, diatoms are introduced into soils whenever many fertilizers and pesticides are applied to them. ​ Similarly diatomite is used as a filler in detergent and to make certain kitty litters. The use of these detergent and kitty litters spreads out-of-place diatoms to many places. ​ Some web pages about it uses are: ​ Diatomite (http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photodiatom.html) ​ Forbidden Forbidden ​ Women In Mining Page not found - Women In Mining ​ Diatomite is organic pesticide Looks like snowflakes, works like cut glass inside insect covering. ​ http://www.greenerplants.com/page83.html ​ "Ranchers have used diatomite for years by adding some to cattle feed . When it is ingested it helps kill larvae living in the cows stomach. It does absolutely no harm to the cow." ​ It is safe to assume that the diatoms in the diatomite fed the cows doesn't stay in the cows, but ends up back in the soil with the manure. ​ DIATOMACEOUS EARTH: A Non Toxic Pesticide MACDONALD J. 47( 2): 14, 42 (May, 1986) ​ http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/Publications/eap4.htm ​ Diatomaceous Earth is fed to animals to reduce the emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from swine. Of course, whatever is fed these animals eventually makes it back into the soil some place. ​ Dietary Supplementation of Diatomaceous Earth and Zeolite to Reduce the Emission of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide from Swine Slurry at: ​ http://www.gov.on.ca/...h/livestock/swine/research/page4.htm ​ Access denied ​ Ag Marketplace What In The World Is Diatomaceous Earth? And, What Can It Do For The Livestock Producer? Farmer? Animal Owner? ​ biconet.com - biconet Resources and Information. ​ There is an enormous amount of diatoms being spread over the face of the Earth by the agricultural use of diatomite and diatomaceous earth by farmers and ranchers. This is a fact that Mr. wmscott needs to be made aware of. ​ Needless to say the diatoms added to the cows end up on ground and eventually in the soil. ​ The amount of diatomite mined and consumed annually in the United States can be found at: ​ Diatomite Statistics and Information | U.S. Geological Survey ​ For example 808,000 metric tons of diatomite was mined and 677,000 metric tons consumed in the United States. Huge quantities of diatomite are being mined and being spread over the environment. ​ I hope that this is of interest ​

I couldn't get the last two links to work.I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications, but my guess is that at this point it would be a pointless exercise. If they're diatoms, then any experienced field geology will probably just tell you that marine diatoms found in surface material, especially in agricultural regions of the country like yours, frequently have a human origin.We've argued long and apparently pointlessly about your diatoms. The diatom discussion was different from most other conversations on the board because instead of discussing existing mainstream evidence we were talking about evidence you had gathered yourself and which only you had examined. I accept mainstream evidence because it has been repeatedly gathered, examined and reviewed by many people. I reject your evidence not just because I question your diatom IDs, but because you are working by yourself with no colleagues. You have no feedback or support from outside opinions, though your inner need for it is obvious in the way you proclaim you've found support in outside quarters, though no one else sees any.Science today is far too broad and complex an endeavor for the next major revolution to come from a scientific hermit in Wisconsin. It is a group activity which progresses through consensus. From a scientific standpoint, your pictures are only of diatoms when a lot of other qualified people agree with you that they're diatoms. And your diatoms arrived there by flood only when a lot of other people agree with you that they arrived by flood. Keep the need for consensus in mind. It's not enough that you think so, a lot of other people must think so, too.--Percy

Percy,Thanks for the info on industrial use and transport of diatoms and diatomaceous earth (Damn, I wish I'd thought of that!). This is a fascinating subject. I once talked to some diatomaceous earth miners in California. They told me how any piece of equipment that goes into the quarry is virtually 'detailed' before it is allow entry due to concerns about contamination. No dirt, soil, leaves, loose paint or oil is left. As anyone who works with heavy equipment knows this borders on obsession. They clean the bulldozer treads with brushes and hot water. Anyway, you can imagine what happens to the stuff once it gets bagged and loaded on trucks for transport all over the country ... diatomaceous dust everywhere.

quote:

---

I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications, but my guess is that at this point it would be a pointless exercise. If they're diatoms, then any experienced field geology will probably just tell you that marine diatoms found in surface material, especially in agricultural regions of the country like yours, frequently have a human origin.

---

With regard to wmscott's diatoms: I would say that, based on symmetry consideratons, his identifications are wrong. Also, despite his declarations that they showed no abrasion or evidence of eolian transport, the specimens are damaged. That, along with the poor quality of photographs, suggests to me that no valid identification or source (marine vs non-marine) can be made.As to experts, there are many out there on the web. I am sure that they are available to make identifications for anyone, and would probably be gratified (and shocked) that someone outside their small fraternity would be interested in such obscure organisms.

Wm This does not clear it up. Austin could publish creaitonist comments that read positively for our sceanrio. It is a matter of interpretation and ones bias can sway the 'criteria' used by either side. This stuff is fitted to belief by both sides. Of course I nevertheless believe the YEC view is a better explanation of these phenomena. No, we would expect it to happen all over the world too! Are there creationists who propose that Noah was a Californian? You are incredibly biased Wm. You rarely go the next step of considering what our POV would really be. You just go for a misrepresentation. OK How it could be fatal when we admit ourselves that the flood origin of comets is a fringe (but intriguing) explanation! Please read all my discussion on flood comets in this sense. Who says this is a primarily ice object? I simply have no idea and congratulate you on your ability to intuitively come to such conclusions without even doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation. So? We already believe the Siberian traps are a flood event. The way you misinterperet it, yes it is. Becasue I don't want to bring up the red herring of thousand year days every time I discuss creation. I'm not utterly convinced of it myself as far as the creative week is concerned although I am convinced of a 7 1000 year day 'redemptive week'. It speaks of 'day or the hour'. Elsewhere Christ tells us to 'watch the seasons' to know his coming. At that level I expect the 2nd coming with 'a generation'. I would actually see the coming into the promised land as a 'shadow' picture (in the sense of Hebrews) of the ultimate rest day. Agreed That's where I don't follow your logic. How do you not see 'another' day as 'another day'!? The use of 'another day' points to another sabbatical rest day. How can you possibly have the 'another day' be the same as a previous day? I don;'t beleive that the millenium is the creative rest day. It is 'another' rest day (as per Heb 4). It is the 'redemptive' rest day for a second 'week' as I have explained. I did mention that the 'day of the Lord' referred to elsewhere in the NT involves events that in Rev 20-22 occur on either side of the millenium. This is a strong hint that time ends with a 1000 year 'day'. Wm, I suggest you are clearly 'marking your own exam paper' here as well as expecting everything to neatly pop out in one go. My testimony is exactly the opposite. The more I examine the YEC sceanrio the more I am understanding why the universe and Earth are the way they are and how mainstream sceince has got it subtley (but not subtley) wrong.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-27-2003]

quote:

---

So? We already believe the Siberian traps are a flood event.

---

I've presented you with a reference with about twenty argon-argon dates of 249.4 +/- 0.5 million years for the basalt of the Siberian Traps and their eastward extension, which is buried by up to 2 km of sediments. You have yet to comment either on the age, or on how long it takes 1,300,000 cubic kilometers of molten rock to cool below the boiling point of water.

CoragypsI have commented on the age (I agreed the uiformity puts constraints on our model) and I simply don't personally have time to do the cooling calcs. I have a mainstream day job.

EdgeI believe both sides are doing data fitting. Becasue of the nature of the data both sides can frequently get acceptable results. You can LOL and snicker as much as you like but this is my sober opinion.

[quote]I have a mainstream day job.{/quote
Sob! Yeah, me too. Sob! Wail!

quote:

---

I believe both sides are doing data fitting.

---

Good for you. This is a nice vague generalization, how about some examples?

quote:

---

Becasue of the nature of the data both sides can frequently get acceptable results.

---

Only when creationists ignore some data.

quote:

---

You can LOL and snicker as much as you like but this is my sober opinion.

---

Thank you. I will. In the absence of facts, that is all you have... As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes.

Edge Evidence that we are data fitting?1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.
* The positive evidence is fitted to numerous depositonal envrionements.
* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: systematic fossil graveyards, sorted layers on grand scales, cyclothems, paleocurrents etc.1b We data fit the geo-col to a catastrophic tectoic flood event with the occasional brief break.
* The positive data is fitted to tectonically generated flood surges.
* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: Evaporite deposits, habitated ground layers, eolien deposits. How do we disipate the tectonic heat?2a You fit the fossil record to evolution over time.
* The positive data is fitted to a sceanrio by arbitary length lines.
* But there are systematically no transitionals along the lines. How did the biochemistry of life first evolve? Where did the basic gene types come from? Can anatomies really constrcut themselves blindly?2b We fit the fossil record to creaiton and the flood.
* The positive data is fitted to a creatd 'kind'/flood burial concept with sufficient diversification to explain observed effects of natural selection and allow Noah to fit all the land based kinds on the ark.
* But there are a handful of transtionals and why all dinosaurs below modern mammals and why no flowering plants below amphibians?We both have similar problems becasue we simply fit the data as best we can to the model we prefer. Down the track one model may become better, probably not just through data taking (although genomics may lend a hand, paleontolgoy still delivers surprises and a systematic study of paelocurrents might be interesting) but also by an improvement in models. Due to the intracability of these complex systems it may not be possible to completely sort this out scientifically. Or evolutionists ignore other data. So give me some examples of what I don't understand.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-28-2003]

quote:

---

Evidence that we are data fitting?

​

1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.

---

Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it.

quote:

---

* The positive evidence is fitted to numerous depositonal envrionements.

---

Nope. The interpretations is fit to the evidence.

quote:

---

* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: systematic fossil graveyards, sorted layers on grand scales, cyclothems, paleocurrents etc.

---

Nope. The paleocurrents etc. are data that mainstream geology is built upon.

quote:

---

1b We data fit the geo-col to a catastrophic tectoic flood event with the occasional brief break.

---

Agreed, you do.

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to tectonically generated flood surges.

---

Which are not supported by the evidence and have no mechanism.

quote:

---

* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: Evaporite deposits, habitated ground layers, eolien deposits. How do we disipate the tectonic heat?

---

All of these are more than adequately explained by mainstream geology.

quote:

---

2a You fit the fossil record to evolution over time.

---

Nope. Evolution explains the fossil record. You've got it backwards again!

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to a sceanrio by arbitary length lines.

---

Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data).

quote:

---

* But there are systematically no transitionals along the lines.

---

That is because they are an interpretation drawn to fit the known data. Not the other way around.

quote:

---

How did the biochemistry of life first evolve? Where did the basic gene types come from? Can anatomies really constrcut themselves blindly?

---

There is evidence of natural origins. Abiogenesis explains this data. The data are not bent to fit the theory.

quote:

---

2b We fit the fossil record to creaiton and the flood.

---

Correct, you fit the data to your theory.

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to a creatd 'kind'/flood burial concept with sufficient diversification to explain observed effects of natural selection and allow Noah to fit all the land based kinds on the ark.

---

Yes, you have forced the data to an explanation that has no mechanism, no modern counterpars and largely defies physical laws.

quote:

---

* But there are a handful of transtionals and why all dinosaurs below modern mammals and why no flowering plants below amphibians?

---

Evolution explains these things readily.

quote:

---

We both have similar problems becasue we simply fit the data as best we can to the model we prefer.

---

Correction. You fit the data, we explain it.

quote:

---

Down the track one model may become better,

---

You are behind the curve again on this....

quote:

---

...probably not just through data taking (although genomics may lend a hand, paleontolgoy still delivers surprises and a systematic study of paelocurrents might be interesting) but also by an improvement in models. Due to the intracability of these complex systems it may not be possible to completely sort this out scientifically.

---

Not as long as you can invoke miracles.

quote:

---

Only when creationists ignore some data.

​

Or evolutionists ignore other data.

---

I have ignored no issues that you have brought up. On the other hand, I hear you say all the time, 'well, this is a problem for us' or you ignore the point all together.

quote:

---

As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes.

​

So give me some examples of what I don't understand.

---

See above. You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around).

Edge That is still data fitting. You have data and then for each bed you find the most similar sedimentary environmetn today and you say that is what this environment looks like after lithificaiton. It is a best fit/calibration scenario. We can do the same thing expcept we have to rely more on simulation since we have no global flood happeneing today. The lines come from the cladogram not the fossil record. You take the data and weave a story around it with dotted lines (and then turn the dotten lines into flows for the public, university and school students. That is data fitting. LOL! I know the historical and technical issues very well. I beleive it is you that do not realize the extent to which you have confused data with interpretaiton.

quote:

---

TB: 1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.

​

Edge: Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it.

---

Well, at least you are consistent. Consistently wrong, that is. You have to understand that there is history here. Just because we now know that the GC represents long ages, does not mean that this was always so. Evidence collected along the way showed us that the times were much longer than 6000 years. For example, radiometric decay made it virtually impossible to have a 6Ky earth. No data fitting at all, simply restructuring of the theory.

quote:

---

That is still data fitting. You have data and then for each bed you find the most similar sedimentary environmetn today and you say that is what this environment looks like after lithificaiton. It is a best fit/calibration scenario. We can do the same thing expcept we have to rely more on simulation since we have no global flood happeneing today.

​

Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data).

​

The lines come from the cladogram not the fossil record.

---

Exactly, the cladograms are not data, the fossil record is. The diagrams were derived from the known fossil record.

quote:

---

You take the data and weave a story around it with dotted lines

---

Exactly, the story is fitted to the data.

quote:

---

(and then turn the dotten lines into flows for the public, university and school students. That is data fitting.

---

Yes, they are the best story available.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis explains this data.

​

LOL!

---

Another cogent argument, I see...

quote:

---

You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around).

​

I know the historical and technical issues very well. I beleive it is you that do not realize the extent to which you have confused data with interpretaiton.

---

I have demonstrated otherwise...

Edge That is all I am saying. That process is called 'data-fitting'. Here is a random web example that shows in what sense the term is used: Mathtools.net - A Resource for the Technical Computing CommunityIn the quantitative fileds I work in (physics and structural biology) we data-fit all th time. In my field a better way to fit NMR data to yield atomic-level molecular dynamics information has just been published. It frequently completely changes the dynamics results extracted from the same data.Data-fitting is exactly the process of weaving a model around data. If you think I am saying that the data is being doctored then you misunderstand me. The geo-col is simply not the type of data that 'speaks for itself'.Naively it looks either like eons or a catastrophe.In detail it also looks either like eons or a catastrophe simply because of the nature of the data. We are both trying to explain the mineral compostion, fossil compostion, paelocurrents and tectonic aspects of the entire vertical span of the geo-col over the entire surface of the Earth. This is very difficult to do in a deterministic manner. It is very difficult to do anything other than tell 'just-so' stories.Stating that the continents have moved and the sea-floors have subducted and climate has changed is one thing. Stating that you know the rates that these processes occurred at is another.YEC Christians have both the Biblical claim of a global flood and systematic scientific evidence of rapidity of generation of the geo-col to back up our viewpoint.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]

Dear Percy;First, thanks for fixing the bug.I knew you would object to my using the word 'identification' in regard to your most recent hum, er . . . "suggestion?" When writing that post I couldn't think of a watered down enough word or phrase that you would be happy with. I used the word 'identification' solely for clarity so you would know what I was referring to. In terms of 'identification' you can think of the usage in light of the little boy riding in the car who looks out the window and sees a cow and said "Doggy!" All 'identifications' are relative as you have repeatedly pointed out by constantly questioning mine. Now if I point out the window and say "unicorn" you can shake your head, point to me and make the 'crazy' circular motions next to your head, and you haven't crossed the line. But if you open your picture book and hold up a picture of a horse, you just made an identification. Once you went from just saying no it isn't, to saying maybe it is this, you crossed the line. I know, I had to bait you for quite a while to get you to do it, and once it is done it is done. Granted you have only basically said 'doggy' which is certainly not an official certified scientific identification published by the leading scientist in the field who is willing to stake his reputation on his carefully researched results. I know you didn't make an official identification, you just offered other possibilities which is offering an alterative unofficial identification which I, to up hold my position have to refute. If you were not offering any possible alterative identifications, then I could ignore the pictures you posted at no risk to my position. So were you challenging my identification, or do you just like to post pretty pictures?

quote:

---

I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species.

---

Yes of course, that is why species identification is important. Asterolampra Marylandica is a centric diatom of which there are very few freshwater descendants, in fact the older books on diatoms say there are none. I have been unable to find any freshwater diatoms that have any resemblance to Asterolampra Marylandica , from your lack of posting on this I gather you haven't ether or wouldn't have resorted to posting pictures of algae.

quote:

---

diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth.

---

I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA.

quote:

---

There are currently 12 diatomite producing facilities in the United States
All of the active diatomite mines is the U.S. are freshwater lake deposits except the marine deposit at Lompoc, California.

​

Most diatomite products are used in filtering applications. With a large particle size distribution, the smallest of the particles occupy space between larger particles. This reduces the rates of flow through the filter. The purpose of calcining is to reduce the particle size distribution. The use of the term calcined is ingrained in the diatomite industry and markets so it is used frequently, but diatomite is actually sinterized not calcined ().
Sintering reduces the size distribution by melting the smallest particles together. To produce calcined diatomite the natural product is heated to between 900 C. and 1100 C. The high temperatures burn off organic contaminants, and shrink and harden the individual particles. Some of the diatom frustules are sintered into small clusters.
seventy percent of all production was used in filtering applications

---

CAS – Central Authentication ServiceNow, most mines of diatoms are freshwater diatoms which don't concern us since we are talking about marine diatoms. In the USA, only the mine at Lompoc, California mines marine diatoms and they are mining the Monterey Formation which has marine sediments from the upper Miocene to the lower Pliocene. The lower Pliocene age gives the diatoms of the Monterey formation a minimum age of probably at least 3.5 millions years. The types of diatoms found in the oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age. The following web site noted.

quote:

---

Paleontologists make use of the fact that diatom species are short-lived: every five million years or so, any particular species will disappear or yield to a new species.

---

Page not found - MBARIBased on that rate of replacement, most of the diatoms found in the Monterey Formation are extinct and are not a problem. Additionally as pointed out in the first site quoted, 70% of this material is used in filtration which means it was sintered or fused, such treatment is visible under the microscope and also fuses the diatoms into clumps too large for wind transport. Also as I have already pointed out, Asterolampra Marylandica is too large for wind transport any way. So contamination from diatomaceous earth and diatomite is at most a very minor problem which can be avoided by site selection. Since I am looking for traces of a marine transgression at the end of the last ice, I of course am looking for undisturbed ice age landscapes, which will not have been contaminated by spread of diatoms from diatomaceous earth. Diatomite is not a problem since it is former diatomaceous earth that has been fused together like sand stone due to heat and pressure.

quote:

---

I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications,

---

OK, Edge & Joe Meert, If you read this you may consider yourselves officially asked for help.

quote:

---

Science today is far too broad and complex an endeavor for the next major revolution to come from a scientific hermit in Wisconsin. It is a group activity which progresses through consensus. From a scientific standpoint, your pictures are only of diatoms when a lot of other qualified people agree with you that they're diatoms. And your diatoms arrived there by flood only when a lot of other people agree with you that they arrived by flood. Keep the need for consensus in mind. It's not enough that you think so, a lot of other people must think so, too.

---

Very sad outlook Percy, I hope most researchers adamantly object to your assessment of scientific progress. Reminds me of something I saw, there was a book published called '100 against Enstien' when someone told Enstein about it he is said to quiped "one would be enough if they were right" Once I complete my research and am hopefully able to publish my results, then we will see whether my findings are accepted or not. So far, my ideas and findings have received little attention and I have yet to complete my work. I am working towards achieving scientific consensus on my work, but even if I am never even published, what matters in the end is whether I was right or not, not how many believed.--WmScott