Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,10:21

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2011,10:02)

kairosfocus, typist:

Quote

Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I] — especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] — are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause.

For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition.

When I see "FSCI [dFSCI]" I think of a monkey trying to type Shakespeare. And I would be right.

I see those terms as an excellent metric for identifying the most dishonest of the intelligent design creationists. Despite the fact that no one has ever calculated, or even clearly defined, CSI or any of its variants and despite the further fact that this has been repeatedly and unambiguously demonstrated to them, the IDCists continue to make claims based on this nonsense.

The only solution I can see is to chain a few of these idiots to a whiteboard in an abandoned warehouse, superglue a marker into their only free hand, fire up a webcam to stream the event, and not free them until they either provide an example calculation of CSI or write "CSI is incoherent gibberish."

But that would be ~~wrong~~ time-consuming.

Seversky

Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,11:54

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 01 2011,21:25)

Stung by the groans elicited by endless repetition of his "I was once an evil atheist" conversion story, Gil resorts to yet another repetition of his "I program LS-Dyna, perhaps the world's most powerful software ever created for the purpose" tic.

You know, you'd think that, being such a software whiz, he'd just program some sort of bot that would post alternating "I was once an evil atheist"/"I am the Liberace of LS-DYNA" screeds with minor variations to save himself the trouble of doing it manually.

Come to think of it how do we know he hasn't?

paragwinn

Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,15:44

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2011,07:07)

Thinking on it, surely DeNews would have asked what a neutral genome was if she had seen that title. ;)

She probably assumes it is something lacking selfish genes.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

paragwinn

Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,15:47

Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 02 2011,09:54)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 01 2011,21:25)

Stung by the groans elicited by endless repetition of his "I was once an evil atheist" conversion story, Gil resorts to yet another repetition of his "I program LS-Dyna, perhaps the world's most powerful software ever created for the purpose" tic.

You know, you'd think that, being such a software whiz, he'd just program some sort of bot that would post alternating "I was once an evil atheist"/"I am the Liberace of LS-DYNA" screeds with minor variations to save himself the trouble of doing it manually.

Come to think of it how do we know he hasn't?

Because the CSI calculated for each of his posts has not exceeded the Universal Lower Bound and each successive post adds no new information.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Amadan

Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,16:44

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 02 2011,04:38)

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2011,15:54)

Quote

Details? We don' need no steenkin details. It's not ID's job to match your pathetic demand for details. Your details stink anyways.

Then why not just say that the "Almighty" did it in whatever the way it was done, even if that is consistent with evolution as described by science, and be done with it? After all, if they say that some method or other was impossible, they're directly implying that the "Almighty" couldn't have done it using that method, which contradicts what I thought was their base assumption. Or am I missing something here?

Henry

Because that would mean that humans are just another animal, a filthy, stinkin' ape no less, with no Greater Purpose, and that would also mean that the Fall never happened, and therefore we didn't need to be Saved, and so The Scriptures might not be the Revealed Truth.
Once you start down that slippery slope, it can only end in one place: the possibility that the atheists were right all along in that when we die, that's it, which can't possibly be the Truth because He is Risen.
So all that other sciency stuff must be wrong. Simple as that. QED. End of story.
Besides, everyone knows that Darwinism leads the innocent to Atheism and materialism, which is far, far worse than Islam, Naziism, and Communism combined, and so must be stopped at all costs.

More importantly, it would mean that Teh Eevul Darwinists are right about something. There is also the not inconsiderable problem that those fellows in frocks in Rome take that line, and some of the constituency would be very unhappy about agreeing with Them.

Having invested so heavily in YECs as a core component of movement conservatism, why let a bit of intellectual honesty spoil the party?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye 4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2011,19:39

Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 02 2011,16:21)

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2011,10:02)

kairosfocus, typist:

Quote

Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I] — especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] — are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause.

For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition.

When I see "FSCI [dFSCI]" I think of a monkey trying to type Shakespeare. And I would be right.

I see those terms as an excellent metric for identifying the most dishonest of the intelligent design creationists. Despite the fact that no one has ever calculated, or even clearly defined, CSI or any of its variants and despite the further fact that this has been repeatedly and unambiguously demonstrated to them, the IDCists continue to make claims based on this nonsense.

The only solution I can see is to chain a few of these idiots to a whiteboard in an abandoned warehouse, superglue a marker into their only free hand, fire up a webcam to stream the event, and not free them until they either provide an example calculation of CSI or write "CSI is incoherent gibberish."

But that would be ~~wrong~~ time-consuming.

Can we poke them with sharpened sticks and/or electric cattle prods?

Because, erm, if so, I, ahem, "know some guys" if you get my drift. Thursday good for you?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Dr.GH

Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,02:45

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2011,17:39)

Can we poke them with sharpened sticks and/or electric cattle prods?

Because, erm, if so, I, ahem, "know some guys" if you get my drift. Thursday good for you?

Louis

I am reminded of when in the 1990s I was indirectly approached for advice on how to cause great pain to a victim without causing serious physical damage. The request was through a professional colleague, supposedly from a foreign police force, and the justification was that they were already using "terrible and potentially lethal" methods already. SO, why not help out with non-lethal methods? Why, I would be a "humanitarian" by providing these pigs with less lethal torture methods. OH! And, I would be well paid.

Stinking assholes. I wish there was a Hell just for them.

Yeah, I know "some guys." Too well to joke about it.

This is a carcass removed from a mass gave by village dogs in Afghanistan. With the destruction of the village, the dogs were starving and began raiding the nearby mass grave. The burial trench was loaded with explosives, killing many of the dogs. But at least a few were able to drag bodies to safety (for the dogs). For more information, see Physicains For Human Rights."

(PS: I deleted "fucking" as an adjective. There is no reason to demean sex with an association torture and murder. The use of rape as torture is much worse than "fucking." Again, I recommend seeing Physicians for Human Rights).

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 03 2011,01:11

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,02:57

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 02 2011,16:44)

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 02 2011,04:38)

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2011,15:54)

Quote

Details? We don' need no steenkin details. It's not ID's job to match your pathetic demand for details. Your details stink anyways.

Then why not just say that the "Almighty" did it in whatever the way it was done, even if that is consistent with evolution as described by science, and be done with it? After all, if they say that some method or other was impossible, they're directly implying that the "Almighty" couldn't have done it using that method, which contradicts what I thought was their base assumption. Or am I missing something here?

Henry

Because that would mean that humans are just another animal, a filthy, stinkin' ape no less, with no Greater Purpose, and that would also mean that the Fall never happened, and therefore we didn't need to be Saved, and so The Scriptures might not be the Revealed Truth.
Once you start down that slippery slope, it can only end in one place: the possibility that the atheists were right all along in that when we die, that's it, which can't possibly be the Truth because He is Risen.
So all that other sciency stuff must be wrong. Simple as that. QED. End of story.
Besides, everyone knows that Darwinism leads the innocent to Atheism and materialism, which is far, far worse than Islam, Naziism, and Communism combined, and so must be stopped at all costs.

More importantly, it would mean that Teh Eevul Darwinists are right about something. There is also the not inconsiderable problem that those fellows in frocks in Rome take that line, and some of the constituency would be very unhappy about agreeing with Them.

Having invested so heavily in YECs as a core component of movement conservatism, why let a bit of intellectual honesty spoil the party?

I remember having this conversation with AmeriChristian (who I miss talking to) at Red State Rabble (which I simply miss). AmeriChristian, a theistic evolutionist, was telling me that someone close to him who was a creationist let it slip that "if evolution is true" then "we have committed a big sin against them" [apes] and probably the majority of the natural world as well.

Yeah. His (or maybe her?) creationist relative was that honest.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,04:47

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 03 2011,08:45)

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2011,17:39)

Can we poke them with sharpened sticks and/or electric cattle prods?

Because, erm, if so, I, ahem, "know some guys" if you get my drift. Thursday good for you?

Louis

I am reminded of when in the 1990s I was indirectly approached for advice on how to cause great pain to a victim without causing serious physical damage. The request was through a professional colleague, supposedly from a foreign police force, and the justification was that they were already using "terrible and potentially lethal" methods already. SO, why not help out with non-lethal methods? Why, I would be a "humanitarian" by providing these pigs with less lethal torture methods. OH! And, I would be well paid.

Stinking assholes. I wish there was a Hell just for them.

Yeah, I know "some guys." Too well to joke about it.

This is a carcass removed from a mass gave by village dogs in Afghanistan. With the destruction of the village, the dogs were starving and began raiding the nearby mass grave. The burial trench was loaded with explosives, killing many of the dogs. But at least a few were able to drag bodies to safety (for the dogs). For more information, see Physicains For Human Rights."

(PS: I deleted "fucking" as an adjective. There is no reason to demean sex with an association torture and murder. The use of rape as torture is much worse than "fucking." Again, I recommend seeing Physicians for Human Rights).

1) You make excellent points.

2) We're talking about creationists, not human beings.

3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,08:56

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2011,02:47)

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 03 2011,08:45)

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2011,17:39)

Can we poke them with sharpened sticks and/or electric cattle prods?

Because, erm, if so, I, ahem, "know some guys" if you get my drift. Thursday good for you?

Louis

I am reminded of when in the 1990s I was indirectly approached for advice on how to cause great pain to a victim without causing serious physical damage. The request was through a professional colleague, supposedly from a foreign police force, and the justification was that they were already using "terrible and potentially lethal" methods already. SO, why not help out with non-lethal methods? Why, I would be a "humanitarian" by providing these pigs with less lethal torture methods. OH! And, I would be well paid.

Stinking assholes. I wish there was a Hell just for them.

Yeah, I know "some guys." Too well to joke about it.

This is a carcass removed from a mass gave by village dogs in Afghanistan. With the destruction of the village, the dogs were starving and began raiding the nearby mass grave. The burial trench was loaded with explosives, killing many of the dogs. But at least a few were able to drag bodies to safety (for the dogs). For more information, see Physicains For Human Rights."

(PS: I deleted "fucking" as an adjective. There is no reason to demean sex with an association torture and murder. The use of rape as torture is much worse than "fucking." Again, I recommend seeing Physicians for Human Rights).

1) You make excellent points.

2) We're talking about creationists, not human beings.

3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

Louis

and here I was all set to go off on a Doug and Dinsdale tangent...

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Patrick

Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,09:22

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2011,05:47)

3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

Indeed, no torture intended. What would a better metaphor be? Perhaps putting their arguments in . . . a vise?

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,09:27

Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 03 2011,09:22)

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2011,05:47)

3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

Indeed, no torture intended. What would a better metaphor be? Perhaps putting their arguments in . . . a vise?

Put their wedge in a vice at Waterloo.

Is that anything like a WC?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,10:18

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 03 2011,14:56)

[SNIP]

and here I was all set to go off on a Doug and Dinsdale tangent...

Oh I am very happy to use.....sarcasm.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,10:19

Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 03 2011,15:22)

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2011,05:47)

3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

Indeed, no torture intended. What would a better metaphor be? Perhaps putting their arguments in . . . a vise?

A vice....

....now why does that seem familiar? ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,11:42

DeNews!

Quote

Here’s neuroscientist Russ Poldrack (U Texas Austin) on neuroscience as neurotrash (in media)

So, let us get this straight: Neuroscientist criticizes media for being gullible nincompoops. What was your profession again, DeNews?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

paragwinn

Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,13:06

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 03 2011,09:42)

DeNews!

Quote

Here’s neuroscientist Russ Poldrack (U Texas Austin) on neuroscience as neurotrash (in media)

So, let us get this straight: Neuroscientist criticizes media for being gullible nincompoops. What was your profession again, DeNews?

~~Propaganda Minister~~ ~~Political Pundit~~ ~~Science Writer~~ ~~Cultural Observer~~ ~~Genome Neutralizer~~ Editorialist

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,14:35

OK, hate me, but the new UD software is an improvement.

Now if they could improve the softheads.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,15:23

I'm not a scientist, I'm a Science Journal Author!

Quote

Evo-devo is NOT the big answer to evolution, says a science journal author

Crackpot (Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr) gets essay published, DeNews stupidly touts it.

As Elizabeth Liddle points out in comment 3:

Quote

Also, it’s got nothing to do with evo-devo. Not sure where you got that idea. Have you read it?

This brings to mind one of my favorite movie scenes:

Quote

Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

ETA: Title changed! (same title, see below)

Quote

Gene duplication not usually a source of biochemical innovation?

ETA: That was a second stupid post about a second stupid paper by a second-rate crackpot. Even DrREC got confused.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,15:40

Quote

Gene duplication not usually a source of biochemical innovation?

Two wrongs make a write?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,17:15

Keeping for posterity, from the "Gene duplication not usually a source of biochemical innovation?" post.

Neil Rickert

Quote

Let me see if I understand this.

James Shapiro refutes Darwinism, with his novel approach to evolution based on natural genetic engineering. And gene duplication is part of the evidence Shapiro uses to support his ideas of natural engineering.

Bozorgmehr says that gene duplication doesn’t do anything useful, and that refutes Darwinism.

It seems that if gene duplication is important, then Darwinism is refuted, whereas if it isn’t important, then Darwinism is refuted. Maybe you can have your cake and eat it too.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Ptaylor

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,20:31

Joseph, master of the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I school of debate, responding to DrREC:

Quote

Does Spenter even consider gene duplication in his book?

Yes, he does.

Quote

Why do you think they are non-mechanistic or designed?

Why do you think they are stochastic?

Quote

You take the evidence for evolution, accept it, and say “that isn’t Darwinian” and “ID isn’t against evolution.”

That is a funny thing you do, DrREC. You obviously have no clue as to what ID claims yet you feel compelled to rail against it.

Quote

By which I think you mean Darwinian=natural, unguided.

Actually evolutionary biologists say that- natural selection is blind/ mindless and the mutations are undirected.

Quote

This makes you a theistic evolutionist.

Nope. But that makes you a butthead.

Quote

You accept the mechanisms, but see a guiding hand behind them, I guess.

Design is a mechanism. A targeted search is a design mechanism. No need for any hand, just a well written genetic algorithm.

Quote

That said, there isn’t any evidence that requires invoking a designer in evolution, geology, meteorology or the casino.

Strange then that scientists have presented plenty of evidence for ID in fields such as biology, geology, physics, chemistry and cosmology.

Link

--------------
We no longer say: â€œAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ We now say: â€œAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

sledgehammer

Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: Oct. 03 2011,23:06

I appears that Joe's rather un-civil response was taken down. If so, good for them.
Then Batty77 chimes in accusing DrRec and Lizzie of "first responder damage control". Jealousy, obviously because that's Batty's usual role, and he proceeds with his own damage control Lit bluff by citing, get this, Bozog himself (along with CreationSafaris, Axe, EvoNewsandSpews, IDpodcast, Abel, and Royal Truman).

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

damitall

Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,03:56

It says quite a lot (and nothing good) about UD that they take BozoJoe Bozorgmehr seriously.

If you read some of his earlier stuff at TalkRational (as "Atheistoclast"), not only is he ignorant of biology, but, under the "look at me, I'm a bit of a clown" facade, he has some pretty unpleasant characteristics.

On second thought, he'd be right at home at UD

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,07:50

is this the same stain as Atheistoclast at PT. if so, LOL. that guy keeps falling for the old hit me in the hand with the shovel trick. wherefore art this ponce

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,07:59

Quote (damitall @ Oct. 04 2011,03:56)

It says quite a lot (and nothing good) about UD that they take BozoJoe Bozorgmehr seriously.

If you read some of his earlier stuff at TalkRational (as "Atheistoclast"), not only is he ignorant of biology, but, under the "look at me, I'm a bit of a clown" facade, he has some pretty unpleasant characteristics.

On second thought, he'd be right at home at UD

And here he is:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-401745

Edit:

and here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-401734

and here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-401737

taking on Nick Matzke

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,08:12

Joe bozo on the holocaust:

Quote

Why is the Holocaust regarded as being sacrosanct?
If it is regarded as an historical fact, then it must surely be permitted to question it and to subject it to further empirical investigation.

If, on the other hand, it is a modern myth that is simply accepted as being true then it needn't be questioned, revised or altered in any way.

Isn't it time that the Western media allowed a free, open and informed debate about the Holocaust and the extent to which it happened and why?

In some respects, the accepted version is already known to be a lie: 6 million Jews were not gassed to death and cremated in ovens. We know that this was Soviet propaganda to portray Auschwitz as a death camp when it was really a labour camp with extensive rail links to supply the German army. The numbers of those who died at this camp has been revised from 4 million to less than a 1 million and there is every sign that it will be lowered still and that disease and exhaustion claimed the lives of the majority.

But why stop there? Surely, the best way to refute any Holocaust denial would be to provide a definitive list of all the victims of this atrocity and to mention where they were killed and the method used. "The most documented event in human history" seems to fail this crucial test.

Failing that, the Holocaust appears to be more a saga than an event.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,08:24

DeNews quotes another ~~climate scientist~~ interpreter of interpretations, Paul Greenberg.

Quote

… CERN’s researchers have found that nearly half of the global warming observed of late isn’t traceable to man’s activities after all but to sunspots, specifically the fluctuations in solar cosmic rays that promote cloud formation …

Afraid I am going to need a cite, because the average of cosmic rays have been constant over the past 60 years, so how can fluctuations explain warming?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,10:33

Is UD down alot for you guys also?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

dheddle

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2011,10:36

What happened to Richard Hughes? Is he still active?

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dheddle

Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007