Gaudi’s Math Becomes Highly Questionable

This is a classical example of why evolutionary scientists get into trouble, not only that, but major science publications as well.  “Now we know…” Gaudi declares at the American Astronomical Society Meeting  where he also accepted the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy. While his award might be impressive to some, his new research study is not…

“MicroFUN astronomers use a method called gravitational microlensing, which occurs when one star happens to cross in front of another as seen from Earth. The nearer star magnifies the light from the more distant star like a lens. If planets are orbiting the lens star, they boost the magnification briefly as they pass by.”

“This method is especially good at detecting giant planets in the outer reaches of solar systems — planets analogous to our own Jupiter.”

His estimate comes from trying to determine “earthlike” systems. What were those systems? A total of two gas giants out of many quadrillions of possible planet systems in the universe, which were not even close to a star. No science media questioned such math, in fact, science day and the rest deemed it to be pretty amazing.  However, readers from were not so excited over this so-called new finding and conclusion.

One reader responded…

“I think Gaudi and Gould are nowhere near a point they should be speculating on final results.  Our techniques for finding planets so far are outright primitive and have not been used long enough to begin to detect what we are looking for! It seems to me to be like looking down at a forest from way up high in an airplane and saying, “We only saw three elk, four bears and a couple of coyotes.  There really can’t be much wild life in the whole forest…”

Another reader says…

“It is way to early to be making these kinds of statements.  We have too little data to even speculate.  It is this kind of junk science that gets the scientific community into trouble.”

Do not be surprised if Gaudi and company declare they found alien life too. Because with conclusions (we know now) like these with just a spec of data, there is no limit on what they will find or how much money they will make in the process. Secular science publications and Guadi call this science, but it’s really highly questionable.

5 thoughts on “Gaudi’s Math Becomes Highly Questionable

  1. I’d love to see an explanation of what this has to do with evolution.

  2. As if we need any further confirmation. Michael again demonstrates his ignorance of the both the content and the practice of astronomy.

    Michael’s anonymous source digs through a secondary report, and finds a reader whose qualifications are unknown, to state that the search for extrasolar planets is still rather primitive. And translates that into a “New Discovery and Comment about Creationism.” Desperate, Michael, tres desperate. Even your most rabid believers must have trouble swallowing that one.

    Let’s say ythat that finding any extra-solar planet is like finding a needle in a haystack. Then finding an Earth-like planet is like finding a a molecule on the needle.

    A decade ago, no one had found any extra-solar planets. Now Michael laughs because those dumb astronomers can’t find another Earth out there a hundred light-years away. Michael sneers at their attempts, yet he has not the foggiest idea how astronomers use technology at the very edge of current knowledge to go about detecting these bodies, or what their detection signifies.

    SHALL WE PUT MICHAEL TO THE TEST ONCE MORE? Michael, name three (3) different techniques for finding extrasolar planets, and name the limitations of each. Failure to respond will confirm your utter lack of credibility to discuss this subject.

    We have already established that Michael’s only qualification to discuss research in biology, evolution, ecology, climate science, chemistry physics, archeology, anthropology, history—and amazingly, even the Bible!—is the payment of a fee to WordPress for the right to mislead a few readers whenever his source deigns to feed him some poisoned gruel.

    “New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism?” No. How about, “More Reasons People Laugh at Creationists”?

  3. “Gaudi’s Math Becomes Highly Questionable”

    What in blazes does anything in this post have to do with any mathematics that Gaudi may have used? Even if it did, in what way would it have been “questionable”?

    Once again, we have a failure of basic reading skills. In his rush to judgment on mainstream astronomers, Michael makes up whole subjects that are not in the material.

    Oh, I forgot before. Besides physics, biology, and all the others, another of the subjects that Michael pontificates upon with zero qualifications is mathematics. Shall we try him in this area too? Michael, how many primitive logic operations are required in order to perform any arbitrarily complex logic function?

    Chirp … chirp…

    That one is easy. If we wanted to be difficult, we could ask, “Prove (or disprove) P=NP.”

  4. Michael! Have your source take a peek at Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48.

    Footprints of a tetrapod 20 million years older than Tiktaalik discovered in Poland. And those dumb scientists had thought that Tiktaalik was the transition between fish and and amphibian! If your source has not yet got his head around this primary paper, go see how world-famous lawyer/paleontologist[1] Casey Luskin denounces it over at Evolution News and Views.[2]

    Happy hunting. You know I’ll be waiting…..

    Oh, don’t forget. The age difference between these two fossils is 20 million years. All by itself, that’s almost 3500 times the total age of the universe that creationists claim. Don’t forget to mention that in your take-down of the new paper.[3]

    [1] Yeah, he’s the guy who couldn’t identify the wrist bones of Tiktaalik, even when they were labeled in a drawing—because he didn’t recognize their correct names. Bwahaaaahaaaa.

    [2] “Tiktaalik Blown “out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Footprints,” Jan. 7, 2010, at

    [3] How many times have I told you not to trust those ID weasels? They think Young Earth is a load of dingo kidneys.

  5. intellectuallyfulfilledatheist: “I’d love to see an explanation of what this has to do with evolution.”

    To a creationist, “evolutionary scientist” is not a word, it’s an epithet. Soon Michael will begin to spell it as a single word, like “damnyankee.”

    Michael has no idea what evolution actually is. All he knows is that he is against it. Therefore “evolutionary” in his mind refers to anything at odds with his particular set of beliefs. These beliefs are, curiously enough, exactly whatever the True Bible Believers’ Church requires him to believe.

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