This Page is part of a Frameset |

  Mistake Earth Science: | Info | Review |

Darwins Irrtum, 8. Auflage

Mistake Earth Science: Expanding Earth Versus Plate Tectonics: Primeval Times
Happened Yesterday
ISBN 1-4251-1735-X


Hardcover: 276 pages
Trafford Publishing
(June 4, 07)
Language: English
ISBN-13: 978-1425132101
Product Dimensions:
10 x 7 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight:
1.6 pounds

Order at Amazon USA Order at Amazon Canada
Order at Amazon France Order at Amazon Japan
Order at Amazon United Kingdom  


Trafford Publishing

272 pages; quality trade
paperback (softcover);
catalogue #07-0105;
ISBN 1-4251-1735-X;
EUR27.21, £18.04

ORDER (Germany/Europe)

Expanding Earth Versus Plate Tectonics: Primeval Times Happened Yesterday


In his bestseller, Darwin's Mistake, which has meanwhile been translated into ten languages, the independent private scholar and consulting civil engineer Hans-Joachim Zillmer has proved that there were megaflood processes and cataclysms but no (macro-)evolution, whereas Mistake Earth Science presents a global revolution in the truest sense of the word in an exciting format. It's a lot of fireworks of facts and evidence, but also "live" excavations with the author and visits to all continents permit a radical revision of previously imagined worlds in favor of newer, trend-setting models of thought.

The various alternative models of thought that were previously introduced by the author have meanwhile been scientifically confirmed: a shift in the earth's axis of at least 20 degrees at the time of the dinosaurs, and also some cataclysms - the "global" deluge? - at the time of human life, because genetic investigations have shown that mankind had once almost died out. Or also, for example, that birds simply don't descend from dinosaurs. Here, the author also documents each piece of evidence that is to be checked out against the theory of evolution, which thereby ends as a beautifully fictional fairy-tale.

In this book, geological and geophysical scenarios and facts are introduced that are still widely relatively unknown. How does one explain that what was previously regarded as the "cradle" of evolutionary theory is geologically too young? Because the Galapagos Islands are only a few million years old and do not stem from the time of the dinosaurs as Charles Darwin erroneously suspected. Why were the largest hippos ever swimming in the rivers of Central European, and this was during the great ice age as well? Dinosaurs once lived on all continents, even on Spitsbergen and in Alaska and at the South pole, since there was a tropical climate from pole to pole. And now even today, the polar cap ice is melting down dramatically rapidly. In a few thousand years, there will not be any more ice, just as it was during the Mesozoic era, at both poles. More and more new finds of the same dinosaur species on almost all continents, but also on both sides of the Atlantic, have put continental drift in the form in which it has been promoted until now into question. On the basis of the most recent NASA research, there could have been geo-electrical events on earth that were previously not considered possible: is continental drift an incorrectly interpreted event? Oceans virtually devoid of water, a Mediterranean that dried up, even the presence of hippos on islands such as Cyprus and other phenomena are scenarios that are not to be explained by our world view and currently observable events. The incredible claim advanced by the best-selling author of this book, that the Amazon formerly originated out of the Sahara and fed into the Pacific, was already confirmed scientifically while the book was in press. Whoever is interested in the origins and development of our planet, as well as our present biosphere, won't be able to extract himself from the fascination of this logical demonstration of evidence and will see the earth's history with completely new eyes.

Back to Top


This highly exciting work of non-fiction, Mistake Earth Science, written in a refreshingly generally comprehensible form, offers highly interesting reflections on contradictions in today's applicable theories of orthodox science. The author drafts an alternative scenario by which the prejudices of individual scientific disciplines are broken down and a new vista of central problems is opened. Zillmer is no know-it-all or zealot. With disarming consistency, he simply refuses to consider as obvious or true what conventional scientists want to believe. Seemingly, of course, they use concepts such as "geological petrifaction" as empty formulas or non-starters as Zillmer shows. Zillmer addresses such certainties of the natural sciences that now dominate our world view - torturing as it may be for narrow minded experts, but fascinating for us by virtue of laconic questions, intelligent arguments and novel interpretative models."

Professor Dr. Bazon Brock
Bergian University Wuppertal (Germany)

Back to Top


Nature doesn’t take leaps? The think but in any case!
On Zillmer’s experimental writings about geological history

“Six million BILD readers can’t be wrong,” reckoned BILD magazine. This probably should be restated as: Whoever buys BILD agrees with its news, claims and philosophy.
In normal science, things seem to go as they do in BILD. The thirty thousand or so geologists, paleontologists, physicists, biologists, and others who, since the days of Lyell and Darwin, have produced insights about the history of our planet and life cannot have been mistaken, because they have so obviously determined our picture of the world and we seem to broadly accept this.
Remarkably, however, BILD readers behave with, say, elections quite differently from what is line with the philosophy publicized in the magazine. So, too, the clientele of normal science obviously use their philosophy to take exception to it. This procedure makes sense, since one can only take exception to something that someone knows. And this something is about conclusions, about indisputable realities about alternative conclusions, by which the indisputable facts then acquire another meaning.

Such alternative conclusions are presented by clients of normal science such as authors like Velikovsky, whom Einstein read with fascination and irritation in his final days, or Tollmann, who could psychologically barely resist the audacity of his own conclusions, or Hans-Joachim Zillmer, a cheerfully demure civil engineer. They and their many colleagues did not invent some new science as a private mythology that one could dismiss as New Age spiritualism. Rather, they are all working in gracious acceptance of the astonishing working results of established scientists from diverse disciplines. They do not deny, as do the spiritualists, collected data and knowledge, but instead support their arguments by precisely such insights.
Why do we actually depend on authors like Velikovsky, Tollmann or Zillmer in order to come to alternative interpretative models? Why those researchers from “regular” science aren’t also bring forth, if their insights are also basic for alternative thinkers?

Edward de Bono has, for example, dealt extensively and systematically with these questions. His study on “whimsical thinking” is widely known. There he compares vertical and lateral thinking. By vertical thinking is meant what we conventionally call logical derivation from generic terms or basic hypotheses about the acquisition of individual phenomena. By lateral thinking is meant an action by detours, thinking by seemingly unsystematic leaps and bounds. Current reformulations for lateral are fuzzy logic or strange revelations. However, one must continually recall that lateral and vertical thinking are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary to each other and to that extent also condition each other. De Bono provides numerous examples of this: “As Marconi was raising the strength and performance capacity of his apparatuses, he ascertained that he could send waves over ever greater distances seamlessly. Finally, he even became so emboldened as to think of radioing a signal across the Atlantic Ocean. In his view, it was merely a matter of a sufficiently strong sender and a correspondingly sensitive receiver. The experts, who knew better, laughed at this idea. They assured Marconi that electrical waves are linearly propagated like light and therefore would not follow the curvature of the earth, but would be beamed off into space. From their logical point of view the experts were completely right, but Marconi, however, remained stubborn, experimented further and was successful. Neither he nor the experts of the time knew anything about the electrically charged layers in the upper atmosphere, the ionosphere. These reflect waves that are sent seamlessly that would otherwise, as the experts predicted, have left the earth’s surface.
Therefore: neither the experts, who derived their conclusion logically from their basic assumptions, nor Marconi, who avoided these derivations, knew the "truth." But Marconi’s action finally compelled the capitulation of the interpretative model of the experts of the time for whom the fact of the wave effect over long distances was no longer comprehensible.

Not even Velikovsky, Tollmann or Zillmer know the "truth" about geo- or bio-historical evolution, but they experiment with concepts and theories as Marconi did with the waves. They do not subjugate nature to the experiment, but rather the logic of scientific thinking and the influence of the logic of language and communications on this thinking. Even concepts that are scientifically perfectly formed must be communicated by verbal or picto-linguistic expression. With this it can happen that the inherent logic of language and communications deforms scientific concepts.

One example: Whoever as a geological historian assumes that our planet was initially a glowing mass that slowly cooled is linguistically communicating the underlying physical concepts of this assumption through the analogy of a baked apple. The earth’s mountainous surface is therefore supposed to have been created like the pleats in the skin of the baked apple. What is at first a by and large enlightening analogy is, however, lost by paying attention to geophysical data that do not fit into this picture. Whoever resists this loss ends by inventing yet another analogical image. He considers the earth a balloon that slowly expanded. Obviously, many of the insights that were not considered in the baked apple model then fit into this image, but others that were well absented in the baked apple analogy; however, fall out of the picture of the balloon’s inflating itself. One does not get any farther by combining both images, since just as a baked apple does not inflate so, too, a balloon does not bake.

In the nineteen twenties, the mathematician Carnap formulated a ban on images for natural scientists in order to avoid “the bedevilment of conceptual thinking through language.” But as the fate of the ban on images in Jewish theology already shows, such bans lead to even more awkward witchcraft, namely paradoxes. Whoever thinks of not using image analogies remains all the more strongly fixated on them the more consistently he follows this imperative. Even the most abstract thoughts of scientists must be communicated via verbalization, that is, they must be made evident, made plausible. However, truth and falsehood are equally enlightening for us as, for instance, psychologists’ experiments have shown. The same submitted photographic portraits confirm to the last detail for those observing them both the assumption that in the person portrayed one is dealing with a criminal as well as the assumption that the person in question is a victim of criminals.

Aesthetes, artists and cultural scientists are all continuously confronted with the strength of such evidential proof. They and numerous artists of the modern scene busy themselves with questions such as how one is to escape seductive image evidence from language and then still be able to make one’s self understood with others through signs with a high degree of ambivalence, ambiguity (duplicity) and uncertainty. They ask whether communication would possibly proceed much more fertilely if they did not rely on evidence. I, too, belong to this group, given what I said about why works like Zillmer’s interest me so extraordinarily. Because Zillmer indeed shows that, even in the different disciplines of the natural sciences that are relevant for his work, insistence on the allegedly plausible leads to conclusions that are in no way congruent for outsiders.
He experiments with the current theories about continental drift and plate tectonics, multiple offsets of the earth’s rotational axis and polar and electro gravitation in such a way that their incongruities are more unified than the asserted congruities of experiential evidence. Zillmer therefore shows that the concepts of the Lyellists and the Darwinists that were held as axiomatic could only be appreciated by their inconsistency. And this appreciation leads to the conclusion that these concepts could absolutely be given up without disregarding the indisputable facts.

Above all, however, Zillmer experiments with a central theorem of the Lyellists and Darwinists: the observable evolution of the planet and the life on it presupposes assuming continuous development through the continuous working of time. This corresponds to a very old claim: natura non saltat ‘nature does not make leaps’. The beautiful, since it is evident, invention of geological ages, primarily the invention of the ice ages, does not permit something like Velikovsky’s or Tollmann’s impact processes (known as Suddenness Theory in discussions of aesthetics), even at the price that collected results, primarily petrified traces of life from strata that disagree with the chronology, simply must not be denied or that rare regional metamorphoses are stylized as exceptions which confirm the basic assumptions. This necessarily leads to misinterpretations, however, as Zillmer suggests to us, so:
 “On May 18th, 1980, on the west coast of the USA in the state Washington, Mount St. Helens erupted. Thereby virtually over night, with tremendous suddenness that is, fifty meter thick layers of geological formations were newly created out of the eruption material. Geologists of a distant future would estimate the time of formation for these laminations as several thousand decades if they did not take the historical event of the volcanic outbreak into account. Quite similarly, the same applies to present-day geologists if they do not take the fact into account that the geological strata of geological ages could have been formed by fast running, cataclysmic processes, instead of by long ongoing deposits of material, grain of sand by grain of sand so to speak.”

Zillmer offers a happy punch line. He points out that an automobile were locked up in the strata that were recent formed by the volcanic eruption. Future archaeologists who are believers in relative chronologies would then have to infer from the discovery of the cars whether these artifacts were already there millennia ago and then died out because they are no longer found in the upper, therefore younger, formations.
What is fundamental for all models of formation processes (of our solar system, of our plant earth, of life) is the time factor we calculate for models of evolution. Even the fairytale formulation “Once upon a time, long, long ago ...” shows that we use the rationale for tempos that are beyond all experiential control and conceivability to make all difficulties that we have with our mental models vanish when approximating unimaginable reigns of time. That is really like a fairytale, and it is precisely for that reason that it is also so popular among the grand narrators of our times, the historians of earth and life history, as popular as it was with grand epic writers since Homer and with the myth makers of all peoples and cultural eras. The fairy-tale collectors, the brothers Grimm, for example refer to them.

At the time of the brothers Grimm, who together with numerous colleagues devoted themselves to the development of languages and cultures, the “brothers Charles”, that is, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, were trying to produce equally successful stories as those of the cultural historians, epicists and popular myth makers about the history of the earth and life among the folk. And the success of the brothers Charles as scientific authorities was so great that even today we hardly dare accept other stories or, at any rate, experiment with them like Zillmer. As early as 1840, Lyell laid down the geological time line that is sacrosanct yet today, though the state of geological knowledge of history at that time seems moderately quaint in comparison with that of today. Then what’s the use of pursuing geology at all, if 150 years of research have not led to any adjustment of the basic assumptions from1840?

However, the Geological Time Scale directly impacts the biological one since the dating of discoveries of former creatures or their traces is dependent on the dating of the geological formation from which they were retrieved. The geological time line and the ideas that are tied to it about change processes also influence assumptions about the time consuming preservation of traces of life. The usual, easy assignment of the geological concept of the “petrifaction” of traces of life provides an immediately striking example of the connections between geo-historical and bio-historical representation, although then no geologist or biologist has yet been able to show how an organism could even have been preserved with all the subtleties of its surface structure if one takes the geological model of petrifaction through prolonged reigns of time as the basis.

One can relate to the intellectual pleasure of authors like Zillmer with which they want to spear curiosities, charging established scientists with adhering to passé models of thought, since they want to categorically fit their research results into mental dogma instead of developing new models of thinking on the basis of their results. Frankly, it becomes embarrassing, if Lyellists and Darwinists rise above the dogmatism of the creationists with the argument that their research results refuted the teachings of Biblical creation. Admittedly the argument applies, but the Lyellists and Darwinists, in turn, do not want to admit that even those research results no longer fit into the concept of their Bible of science. At numerous points in his analysis of the Charles' fairy-tales, Zillmer documents the blooming nonsense to which such a refusal leads:
One thing in the dogma of the geological time line and the paleontology of the biotypologies attached to it, which takes the orientation of the Great Ice Age for granted, is salvaged from the contradictions of the Ice Age as to concrete biofinds by the assessment that “the typical ice age animals (among them hippopotami, lions and rhinoceroses!) that endured temperatures kept far below the freezing point for millennia or thousands of decades “with stoic serenity.” That would only be possible if they had dematerialized themselves for millennia, fairytale magic, against which the findings unequivocally speak.

Some aspects of Zillmer’s experimental geo- and bio-historiography, which were already explained in the book Darwin’s Mistake and which are expanded in this volume in interesting ways, draw special attention in public. One could post them as Zillmer’s rejuvenation cure for the earth and its life forms. With a presumed co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, Zillmer considerably shortens the time horizon for the evolution of life into specific forms. In order to communicate this thinking on the time change, he offers an image analogy of his own: the time line as a stretchable and re-shrinkable rubber band. This notion is well known in art and cultural history, not the least from the popular song “puppet on a string”, which, according to the love song, signifies “lovers on heart strings”. It is, however, first possible to pump more than the usual evidence from this image of the time line as a rubber band if one assumes there was no puppeteer, but instead imagines the movement of many marionettes linked to each other by rubber bands with their limbs in a reciprocal agitation that is self-controlled as they react to forces operating from outside. Such forces demonstrably actually operate and in time force the rubber band to extreme stretching and re-shrinking, speeding up and slowing down, approximately like the collision of our planet with other heavenly bodies. They simultaneously represent the incursion of cosmic temporality into the earthly one, as it were, and generate a time structure of suddenness, of the impact of time itself.

But these are indeed only images with seductive evidence with which we can only experiment, as Zillmer alludes. To consider them true would only be replacing an old dogma with a new one. The alternative geo- and bio-historical writers generously protect us from this by inventing new uncertainty through productive thinking.

Professor Dr. Bazon Brock
University Wuppertal (Germany)

Back to Top