Charlie Wolcott

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/ (I refer to exchanges under a post dated 2 June flagging a Ken Ham YouTube video)

An insight into how internet young earth creationists behave and into what type of person becomes an internet young earth creationist Christian.

Wolcott: "The difference between Ken Ham and Bill Nye (among virtually all Bible deniers) is that Ken told the truth he would not change his position on the authority of Scripture. Nye said one piece of evidence would change his mind. He was presented with many. No change. Any time I see "I follow the evidence", I laugh because I have yet to see a single person make that claim and actually do it."

Me: "Please tell us exactly what evidence Ham presented that 'should' have led to a change of mind by Nye after the debate.
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/arc ... nye-debate
For the record, this is what Nye said at the time: "We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately."

Wolcott: "I'll address the evidence when you address the argument I am making. Has Bill Nye EVER expressed any reality to even listen to anything YEC has to say? Because when he returned to actually go to the Ark he refused to even talk with the PhD about it and when he presented his case, he made it very obvious he never bothered to find out what the YEC arguments actually were. Oh, he got 6 days, and 6000 years, and global Flood right, but that's it...and he didn't get it from AiG directly.
I know you think I am just talking about the debate, but I referenced the debate for the claim and in the time since, Bill Nye hasn't even bothered to look or consider anything. Ken Ham did not try to refute Evolution in the debate and instead won the debate by addressing the question at hand within the first five minutes (not my formal opinion but that of a Texas Court Justice) by proving one can be a YEC and functional scientist in society today.
My argument is Ken Ham knows where he stands and is honest that he is not going to change his mind and Bill Nye made a claim he never had any intention of carrying out. You address that before I'll talk about evidences."

Me: "Wolcott evasiveness noted. I thought he was an expert? I did not fail to 'address' his argument. And everyone can see that. You are now moving the goalposts by making more criticism of Bill Nye. Everyone can see that. You claimed Nye was presented with 'many' pieces of 'evidence' at the (original) debate but failed to change his mind. I asked you for an example of said evidence and even provided a full transcript of the debate. And - as someone predicted - you DUCKED the question. Everyone can see it. Scientists do not just accept arguments from non-scientists (such as Nye) just because arguments were put to them in a debate or some other event. That is not how it works. And you know it. And it's not because they are slaves to any religious book. It's because the arguments often fail the scientific test."

Me: "Correction - the non-scientist I was referring to is Ham (it's late here in the UK)."

Wolcott: "It's not evasion. It's keeping YOU from derailing the comment. I simply reinforced and clarified my original comment. Deal with it. I'm not going to chase you around.
Scientists do not accept arguments from non-scientists such as Nye? So why is he their spokesperson?"

Wolcott: "To go with your correction, Nye refused to speak with the scientists with more credentials that most of those who he speaks with on his own side. He refused to listen to a word and actually learn what he was fighting against. Both you and "Bible and Science Forum" have learned well from his stock.
And yes, Nye is a non-scientist. The only thing he knows about actual science is the script they gave him 20-30 years ago. And the fact that you think unless you can prove a historical event by pure scientific means, it also proves you have no right to be in any discussion on the matter. But the ignorant and arrogant love to hear the sound of their voices. The Bible calls them fools."

Me: "Charlie Wolcott There's nothing to 'deal' with."

Me: "Charlie Wolcott Nye is pro science. Ham is pro creationism."

Me: "I was NOT derailing. I asked you a simple QUESTION. You ducked it."

Wolcott: "Nye is pro-liberal, government control over everything, not pro science. You again equate evolution with science here which is precisely what you denied earlier. Ham is pro creation. Despite your opinions otherwise, that doesn't make him an idiot."

I'll let this evasive bigoted extreme right wing liar have the last word since anyone still reading the thread can see that many of his statements - including the parting shot "you again equate evolution with science here" - are plain false. Yes, I was saying creationism is not science, if that is what Wolcott originally meant (I can't now locate the comment in question). Young earth creationism rejects vast swathes of science (not just evolution but also geology and astronomy). What I denied, based on my straightforward reading of his original comment - and I still deny it - is that I am suggesting that 'evolution is science' (it is part of science but not all of science - which is an obvious no-brainer).

The bottom line is that Wolcott made a sweeping original statement which, when unexpectedly challenged, he could not or would not substantiate.

I also note that in other exchanges under the same 2 June post various comments by the (theistic evolutionist) bible.and.science.forum have now been hidden - whilst various posts attacking him (including by Wolcott) are still visible.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
Assuming he is not referring to some other person (WHO), liar Wolcott is repeating his falsehood regarding my words to him (no longer visible as far as I can see) that were posted here: https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
Because, as mentioned in the preceding post, I let him have the last word at the Ham facebook thread, the bigot thinks I must be admitting to something and is declaring himself vindicated at the Sorensen hate page.
This is what he is saying: "And they accuse us not only being being "anti-science" but lying and misrepresenting them when we say they equivocate "science" with Evolution (which is PRECISELY what they are doing when they call us anti-science)."
Anti-science means that because they are 'biblical creationists' they reject whole swathes of firm science - evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology ... and put forward alternatives that fail the scientific test such as their 'flood geology'. I do NOT 'equivocate' and suggest that "evolution is science" or some such. I DO say young earth creationism is not science. Science is science.
I am now, of necessity, flagging this at the Ham thread (as I cannot do so at the Sorensen thread due to being blocked by that coward).
Will Wolcott correct his words at the Sorensen thread after reading this? Of course not. Unless there is a flying pig on the horizon.

[a_haworthroberts]

My new reply reads:
"I was going to let Wolcott have the last word (I still might). However he is now seemingly lying about my words in another place - where I cannot defend myself (as 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen blocks me). So: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3812&p=51472#p51472"

[a_haworthroberts]

You may wish to judge for yourselves. I was attempting to have a serious discussion. But I have now given up trying to work out what is in the mind of blogger Charlie Wolcott (it seems to be something along the lines of "I Charlie Wolcott have decided that the phylogenetic tree is a load of total nonsense and you have refused to address my claim"):
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 2476268863

[ProfessorTertius]

I've only skimmed Charlie's posts (and perhaps someday I will have time to read his replies to my posts in the thread) but everything I've read from him so far is just mind-numbingly science-illiterate. It is so teeth-on-edge ignorant, especially when coupled with his arrogance. (He truly thinks that he has a strong grasp of science.)

You fail to realize the phylogentic [sic] tree was created BEFORE the fossil, genetic, and dating evidences had come around.

Of course it was---because it is a reflection of what is observed in nature! Charlie fails to mention that as the years went by and scientists observed and published more and more data, the phylogenetic tree grew in detail because the general idea which Linnaeus et al grasped was sound. Charlie's somewhat childish objection is akin to saying, "You chemists and physicists fail to realize that the Periodic Table of the Elements was created before all sorts of physical attributes were even known, let alone measured---and many elements hadn't even been discovered yet!" Charlie fails to understand that a sound model only gets better and better with time, and it also makes predictions which are confirmed by new discoveries. This is true of the Periodic Table which predicted the properties of elements yet to be discovered and it was and is true of the Phylogenetic Tree which continues to predict not yet discovered life forms and even where they are likely to be found geographically and in the geologic record. (In the past I might have gone to great effort to explain all of this to Charlie but it is clear from what he writes that he wouldn't grasp the ideas, even if he would ALLOW himself to look at the evidence.)

I didn't realize just how little background he had in scientific fundamentals. I am beginning to wonder if he was home-schooled. Do you know? (I've learned to be less harsh with such people than I was in the past. Some of the home-schooled fundamentalists were raised on ACE materials and they were prevented from learning some of the very most basic fundamentals we take for granted in K through 12 public education. They are abused children who may be only at the very beginning of realizing how much their development was crippled. I've had conversations with home-schooled Christians who can't reason through the simplest of sixth grade science experiments. And those who have been ACE---Accelerate Christian Education---educated in the last ten years may only have READ about the experiments and never actually conducted them. )

Of course, when it comes to my fellow Christ-followers, it is their ARROGANCE that bothers me most---because so many non-Christians equate that attitude and behavior as what it means to be a Christian. Charlie truly believes that he understands vast areas of science far better than the PhDs. He is certain that it is just a big conspiracy and a "wink wink" conspiracy.

Biologos has a very conciliatory attitude towards the leaders responsible for such mindsets in the YEC world. But I have come to wonder if it is long past time when Christians need to loudly denounce and admonish these people as FALSE TEACHERS who are doing terrible harm to the Church and the Great Commission. I know that in my case I was greatly helped by the people who told me outright, "What you are saying is stupid and absolutely ridiculous. You are ignorant of the basic science of these topics and you need to educate yourself before you thrash about and declare all of the scientists wrong."

Human nature sometimes needs hit over the head with a 2x4. That's why Jesus was willing to yell at people, call them names, and turn over tables on the temple grounds.

[ProfessorTertius]

It was also interesting to read why Charlie is afraid to step outside of his protected echo chambers and engage other Christians at websites like Biologos. Like Ken Ham, he has nothing but contempt for them. (Of course, his descriptions show that he has no idea what kinds of people post there. He just knows that they are evil and scary.)

[a_haworthroberts]

I've only skimmed Charlie's posts (and perhaps someday I will have time to read his replies to my posts in the thread) but everything I've read from him so far is just mind-numbingly science-illiterate. It is so teeth-on-edge ignorant, especially when coupled with his arrogance. (He truly thinks that he has a strong grasp of science.)

You fail to realize the phylogentic [sic] tree was created BEFORE the fossil, genetic, and dating evidences had come around.

Of course it was---because it is a reflection of what is observed in nature! Charlie fails to mention that as the years went by and scientists observed and published more and more data, the phylogenetic tree grew in detail because the general idea which Linnaeus et al grasped was sound. Charlie's somewhat childish objection is akin to saying, "You chemists and physicists fail to realize that the Periodic Table of the Elements was created before all sorts of physical attributes were even known, let alone measured---and many elements hadn't even been discovered yet!" Charlie fails to understand that a sound model only gets better and better with time, and it also makes predictions which are confirmed by new discoveries. This is true of the Periodic Table which predicted the properties of elements yet to be discovered and it was and is true of the Phylogenetic Tree which continues to predict not yet discovered life forms and even where they are likely to be found geographically and in the geologic record. (In the past I might have gone to great effort to explain all of this to Charlie but it is clear from what he writes that he wouldn't grasp the ideas, even if he would ALLOW himself to look at the evidence.)

I didn't realize just how little background he had in scientific fundamentals. I am beginning to wonder if he was home-schooled. Do you know? (I've learned to be less harsh with such people than I was in the past. Some of the home-schooled fundamentalists were raised on ACE materials and they were prevented from learning some of the very most basic fundamentals we take for granted in K through 12 public education. They are abused children who may be only at the very beginning of realizing how much their development was crippled. I've had conversations with home-schooled Christians who can't reason through the simplest of sixth grade science experiments. And those who have been ACE---Accelerate Christian Education---educated in the last ten years may only have READ about the experiments and never actually conducted them. )

Of course, when it comes to my fellow Christ-followers, it is their ARROGANCE that bothers me most---because so many non-Christians equate that attitude and behavior as what it means to be a Christian. Charlie truly believes that he understands vast areas of science far better than the PhDs. He is certain that it is just a big conspiracy and a "wink wink" conspiracy.

Biologos has a very conciliatory attitude towards the leaders responsible for such mindsets in the YEC world. But I have come to wonder if it is long past time when Christians need to loudly denounce and admonish these people as FALSE TEACHERS who are doing terrible harm to the Church and the Great Commission. I know that in my case I was greatly helped by the people who told me outright, "What you are saying is stupid and absolutely ridiculous. You are ignorant of the basic science of these topics and you need to educate yourself before you thrash about and declare all of the scientists wrong."

Human nature sometimes needs hit over the head with a 2x4. That's why Jesus was willing to yell at people, call them names, and turn over tables on the temple grounds.

Having checked at his Facebook page, I note that he was indeed home-schooled. (And he doesn't sit on the fence, GEDDIT*.) I'll email you the relevant link.

* https://www.blogger.com/profile/13302218624526553778

[a_haworthroberts]

Wolcott is a TOTAl liar and bigot. Under a Sorensen post of 3 hours ago (which begins "There is something I wanted to talk to you about ...") he's written this:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"I have had to purpose to not give these guys any attention because "debate" is not what any of them want. They don't even want a discussion. They just want us for dinner. We have no obligation to give them any answers, nor our time. The constant harassing of Nehemiah by Sanballot in trying to get him to the plains of Ono for a 'debate" when in reality the plot was to kill him or harm him, is certainly reflected in these two. So is the demon-possessed girl who kept harassing Paul in Philippi. And for someone who admitted directly that "we have nothing of value to say", why would he want a debate anyway? Why would he want to give us a voice? Unless his intention, as well proven, has nothing do with debating."

Please see my post at 17.39 hours on 19 December. Which Wolcott is pretending does not exist despite me sending it to him via his blog page (because he will ONLY post on Facebook pages that block me): viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51805&hilit=wolcott#p51805
STILL waiting for an acknowledgement - and perhaps even an answer or two - from this bigoted liar.

Who also recently made false and refuted claims on Facebook about Homo naledi (pretending the bones must belong to more than one species even though the scientists were able to completely rule that out - see link below):
https://elifesciences.org/articles/09560
"In addition to general morphological homogeneity including cranial shape, distinctive morphological configurations of all the recovered first metacarpals, femora, molars, lower premolars and lower canines, are identical in both surface-collected and excavated specimens ….These include traits not found in any other hominin species yet described. These considerations strongly indicate that this material represents a single species, and not a commingled assemblage….
The collection is morphologically homogeneous in all duplicated elements, except for those anatomical features that normally reflect body size or sex differences in other primate taxa."

Please also see all the other bigot Christians giving Sorensen the approval he craves.

[a_haworthroberts]

As sent to his Facebook page just now:

"By all means delete after reading (the reason I can post after you banned me is that Facebook unjustly blocked me from posting for 30 days and now I can post again earlier creationist bans have lapsed - I am NOT using any kind of 'duplicate' account). I gave you my email address at your blog - but you refuse any dialogue about the matters I raised despite claiming that such objections have already been dealt with by creationists and that anti-creationists 'don't' actually want a dialogue (this one does because the hard facts are on our side). Link follows in a moment.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3812&p=51829#p51829"

[a_haworthroberts]

My first comment remains visible on Wolcott's page but my link to this thread does NOT.

I have just mentioned that the link was indeed posted by myself, and just added this comment (which may or may not remain visible):
"At the link I made a post about Facebook comments by yourself at 'The Question Evolution Project' which in turn linked back to an earlier post where I wrote that "Charlie Wolcott opines: "... They never have anything actually difficult nor which hasn't been refuted many, many times ...". So why are there no dinosaur fossils at the Grand Canyon, Charlie? So how could asteroid Oumuamua have possibly have travelled to our solar system in just 6,000 years, Charlie? And how come young earth creationists pick and choose their 'Bible' literalism ie a 'young' Earth is holy writ but a flat Earth (instead of a ball/globe) is 'unbiblical'?"

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/charlie.wolcot ... f=ufi&rc=p

Him:
"And this relates to anything I said here...how? This is why I keep ignoring most anything you say. I am not letting my posts be your cesspool for insults and elephant hurling. But I will answer your three questions here and ONLY those. I will not allow you to ignore the answers and move onto the next ones.
Dino fossils in the Grand Canyon. Simple. They didn't live there when the Flood took place. Perhaps you should consider asking your secular experts the same question.
Oomuamua: Got any actual scientific evidence of where it came from? Or just guesses based on imaginary scenarios? Where was its starting point? Please, by all means show the visual evidence of its origin.
Bible literalism: Please learn what you are arguing against before you complain against it. We don't pick and choose arbitrarily when to pick a literal interpretation. The "literal" interpretation for the "circle" of the earth does not mean "flat circle" at all. This is frequently answered by many YEC pages. Surely you've come across it before. Unless you want to admit you cherry-pick whether you believe in geocentricism and heliocentricism every day.
This should be common knowledge to those in this debate, Ashley. Try catching up to the real world. I answered your questions. I will not answer any more here. In the future, please act like an intelligent, mature adult, by responding to posts with comments that actually related to the topic on the OP. If you can't respond to those other comments because you got blocked, that's not my problem."
Me:
"I came here because (like many people) I am blocked from commenting at Sorensen's pages.
The exposed rocks at the Grand Canyon are (apart from the very topmost ones) way too OLD for dinosaur fossils (even though the canyon itself was formed, slowly, long after dinosaurs went extinct). YECs insist there was a 'recent' global flood and that dinosaurs were still extant before and after it. And the Grand Canyon is huge vertically (and horizontally).
I already commented on Oumuamua here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3837 Remember that Answers in Genesis have now admitted TWICE that it is interstellar. Not originated within our solar system.
If I take your answer on literalism and the shape of Earth as valid, then clearly the creationist Christian Stallings (see here viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3848
is wrong). But he too is a literalist - and I doubt he would hold to an utterly ridiculous flat Earth belief unless he was convinced that some Bible verses confirm this to be a fact. You probably have in mind article like this (just seen and only skimmed): https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/ It's all a question of the intended meaning of Isaiah 40:22 in particular.
I'm firmly in the real world. Are you? If so, how could Oumuamua arrive near our Sun in just 6,000 years or less?
I'm re-producing this exchange at the BCSE community forum for information and reference.
And verses that refer to 'four corners' (a flat surface would be more likely to have 'corners' than a 'globe'). [I meant for this to appear just after the Isaiah reference.]
Up to you whether you reply. As noted, I have SAVED this reply."

[a_haworthroberts]

The Facebook fascist cretins falsely marked my reply above as 'spam'.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... ation.html

I've just replied to him here (but may get censored):
""Old Earth models can't correct much of Genesis because they get both Genesis wrong and the science." They don't get the science wrong - if they attempt to harmonise science with Genesis but fail that's because Genesis (and the genealogies) are wrong (or are being misinterpreted somehow). Yes - the opening chapters of Genesis are mostly wrong.

As for Oumuamua, Answers in Genesis (Danny Faulkner) admitted on their website that it must be interstellar in origin. "This asteroid is just like all the other evidences for deep time. They fail basic scrutiny and very likely will show to actually back up the YEC position over time as more proper studying takes place." Total rubbish. And YECs DO use other things that cannot be 100% verified as a weapon against 'deep time' - such as the fact that Oort Cloud comets have not been observed (when in the Oort Cloud). In what possible way could Oumuamua sometime 'back up' the YEC position? You and your friend Steve Risner (so far censoring me once again under his latest and an earlier post) just double down on the rhetoric every time something real and tangible falsifies a young universe. As if you were trying to convince yourselves. There are Oumuamua data btw.

I am posting this at the BCSE community forum so it will be visible somewhere even if you fail the comment."


PS Just seen that Risner FINALLY published my comment that was submitted under his earlier blog post around TWO WEEKS ago.
PPS Wolcott allowed me to post my conclusions re Oumuamua on his Facebook page a while back (see my above post, the last but one post dated 4 January). Yet now he is acting all 'ignorant' about my Oumuamua argument ...

[a_haworthroberts]

http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... heory.html

He FINALLY approved my comment dated 9 Feb - and responded.

I have just submitted the following attempted replies (the first is the text of an email I sent on 10 Feb and which was copied to someone at Worldview Warriors):


"I found this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06151
Though Answers in Genesis (who regularly use the phrase 'no new information' without mentioning gene/genome duplication) say they debunked it:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/gene-duplication/ (I hadn't seen this before as I haven't been following their articles for as long as ten years)
There's also this one from 2008:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... formation/

Purdom's main argument appears to be 'no new function' (plus accusations of 'circular reasoning' and 'prejudicial conjecture') but I'm not sure she addresses everything in that Wikipedia link - or this one (in her article about that Nature paper she claims the only result was subfunctionalization and not neofunctionalization):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... #DDC_model (I accept that they are discussing models)
From the first Wikipedia link:
"Neofunctionalization
Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure—that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus, duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function. Some examples of such neofunctionalization is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene and duplication leading to a novel snake venom gene[4] and the synthesis of 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone.[5] "

In the light of the Purdom comments, what Risner wrote about 'no addition of genetic information' is extremely simplistic and potentially misleading. I also note that the Nature article (Purdom's footnote 2) quotes Sean Carroll as saying "When you have two copies of a gene, useful mutations can arise that allow one or both genes to explore new functions while preserving the old function". Purdom ignores this comment whilst alleging that other Carroll comments are "not based on fact". As usual, the YEC appears out to bamboozle her targeted readers.

I have learnt however that rather than arguing that gene duplications are fictional YECs argue that they do not support/are not evidence of 'molecules-to-Man' evolution. But I don't believe these articles address the issue of neofunctionalization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalization

I've not seen a rebuttal of this paper by AiG:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003108/"

and:
"Young earth creationism is part of a religion - Christianity. It uses a lot of pseudo-science to make its case, whilst rejecting other scientific understandings largely for religious reasons (eg 'the Bible shows a young Earth so that couldn't have happened').

I already explained about Oumuamua - at the BCSE community forum as well as in emails. But maybe you missed that (your friend Charlie has no answer to me either on this point other than falsely claiming we lack 'data' on Oumuamua):
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3837

Faulkner's piece did NOT address the obvious issue I raised. About the vast time it has been moving across outer space from where it first originated prior to arriving in our solar system in 2017. I have seen NO YEC address this - not AiG, not Wolcott, not Sorensen, not you (and the ICR, CMI, Coppedge and Hartnett have said NOTHING about this body as far as I am aware).

I am posting this reply at the BCSE community forum also."

[a_haworthroberts]

http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... ation.html
He can have the last word under his blog since his latest responses contain no substance that needs refuting. He cannot in any way back up his previous empty assertion concerning interstellar asteroid Oumuamua that "This asteroid is just like all the other evidences for deep time. They fail basic scrutiny and very likely will show to actually back up the YEC position over time as more proper studying takes place". As I told his colleague Risner (who so far has not approved my latest comments): AiG's piece on Oumuamua "did NOT address the obvious issue I raised. About the vast time it has been moving across outer space from where it first originated prior to arriving in our solar system in 2017. I have seen NO YEC address this - not AiG, not Wolcott, not Sorensen, not you (and the ICR, CMI, Coppedge and Hartnett have said NOTHING about this body as far as I am aware)".

I note that Wolcott also claims of eg 'the fossil records' that: "What was initially proclaimed to be evidence for Evolution really didn't turn out to be such". That being total and complete rubbish since a 'global flood' could not produce the order seen within the fossil record - whereas evolution and deep time could. But what point is there pointing this out to a closed minded YEC fundamentalist? He would just dig in further. Those with a more open mind might view the thread.

He also tries this trick: "You are the one trying to convince yourself." But I'm the one following the evidence. He is not. And he adds: "It's not my fault none of your evidences actually do what you think they do." That is a total lie. He also suggests that eg Jupiter might have affected Oumuamua's hyperbolic trajectory, something which had not occurred to me - it has the greatest orbital eccentricity so far known by modern science for a solar system object. According to a footnoted article on Wikipedia: "Based on observations spanning 34 days, ʻOumuamua's orbital eccentricity is 1.20, the highest ever observed. An eccentricity above 1.0 means an object exceeds the Sun's escape velocity, is not bound to the Solar System, and may escape to interstellar space. While an eccentricity slightly above 1.0 can be obtained by encounters with planets, as happened with the previous record holder C/1980 E1, Oumuamua's eccentricity is so high it could not have been obtained through an encounter with any of the Sun's planets, known or unknown. Even undiscovered planets, if any exist, could not account for ʻOumuamua's trajectory – any undiscovered planet must be far from the Sun and hence moving slowly according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Encounters with such a planet could not boost ʻOumuamua's speed to the observed value, and therefore ʻOumuamua can only be of interstellar origin." (As AiG's Danny Faulkner recognised.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua#Trajectory

I am flagging this post to Wolcott.