Talk.Origins & Sci.Bio.Evolution

This document was produced in 1996 to describe the problems involving talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution. Talk.origins appears to have become totally moderated since then; it is not clear that much else has changed.


Contents of the Splifford FAQ:

Evolution on the Internet, talk.origins
Other People's Opinions
"Bandar-Log"
Evolutionists and Free Speech...
The Problem
A Potential Solution and a Message to Jerry Falwell
Fred Struss on probabilities, abiogenesis etc.
The Basic Stupidity of Evolutionism
The Problem of Feral Chickens
Splifford Genesis
Infinitely Stupid Ideological Doctrines
Putting Religion on an Equal Footing with Evolution in Our Schools
Funding for Evolution Research
Questions for Those who Teach Evolution
Does Belief in Evolutionism Lower IQ?
A Cure for Evolutionism?
Appendix A: The term "Bandar-Log
Appendix B: Total unix grep for "liar" on t.o dir
Appendix C: Propagandism/Propagandists


I. Evolution on the Internet.

The two main usenet groups for discussing evolutionary questions are sci.bio.evolution, and talk.origins. There is a certain amount of spillover from and into sci.bio.paleontology, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, and one or two other groups, but t.o and s.b.e are the main forums.

The official charter of talk.origins is to take heat off of sci.bio.evolution, i.e. to allow sci.bio.evolution a free, highly-censored ride into America academia, that freshmen and sophomores there might think evolution to be in a sort of a rosy, happy state, defended by all people of virtue and wisdom, attacked only by the most vile and bigoted of blackguards, scoundrels whose comments should not and in fact are not even seen in an institute of "higher learning".

The unofficial and defacto charter of talk.origins is to prove and to put upon permanent and perpetual display the natural dichotomy and division of the human race, not into male and female, white and non-white, democrat and republican, capitalist and communist or any such with which we are familiar, but into those who believe in the theory of evolution, and liars.

That may sound astonishing at first blush, but you may convince yourself of it in the following manner. Any large service provider such as Netcom or Digex will typically keep a month and a half to two months worth of t.o postings on hand at any one time. Simply use the ordinary UNIX grep (get regular expression) utility for the word "liar" on the directory in which t.o. articles are stored, e.g.:

grep -i " liar" /usr/spool/news/talk/origins/*

or some such. On Digex, that typically produces between 500 and 1500 hits (see Appendix C for full listing). Typical gems include:

136610:can one be?! They are proven, repeated liars, as is amply documented in the
136642:Liar, liar, Pete's on fire: they are _also_ pathetic.
139946:>>>Duh, like do we care, retard, duh, duh, duh, liar, liar, liar, retard, duh
140205:On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
142226: fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. (I hope
140323:On a related note, are you stupid, or a liar, or a stupid liar?
140372:God is a liar! And funny how our DNA is nearly identical: just as

You could do the same with 'lies', 'lying', 'dishonest'. Even when there are no creationists around, you'll find them calling eachother liars to keep in practice.




It begins with believing that evolution is a fact:



     Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu

     Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

     Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

     Lines: 12

     Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu

     In-reply-to: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius A. Lecointe)



     In article , dlecoint@garnet (Darius A. Lecointe) writes:

     >Since you were not paying attention, or were out of the room, I also

     >said that no one _knows_ anything, we only have beliefs about something.



     Please tell us in what sense belief in evolution is somehow different

     than belief in gravity.  In particular, please explain--in enough

     detail so that we can tell that you are talking about _evolution_ and

     not some phoney baloney parody of it--how someone can claim to have a

     functioning rational brain, believe in gravity, yet not believe in

     evolution.

     --

     -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

and that, perforce, all nonbelievers are either idiots, or liars:


     From weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu Tue Jul 13 09:11:20 1993

     From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

     Newsgroups: talk.origins

     Subject: Re: Yes-or-No: another try

     Message-ID: <135723@netnews.upenn.edu>

     Date: 13 Jul 93 13:11:20 GMT

     References: <21lq4f$h46@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <742405154.24579@minster.york.ac.uk> <135497@netnews.upenn.edu> <742505063.24525@minster.york.ac.uk>

     Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu

     Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

     Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

     Lines: 78

     Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu

     In-reply-to: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk



     In article <742505063.24525@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster writes:

     Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu) wrote:

     : In article <742405154.24579@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster writes:

     : >Jim and Darius have a thread going of some interest to me. Matthew

     : >comes in midway with a new question. Jim makes a polite and

     : >thoughtful reply. All ok so far.



          : The above is a lie.  Jim was deliberately trying to derail my thread.

          The word "lie" is used far too often in this forum, on the weakest

     of pretexts...



Standard for talk.origins, whenever anybody should be so bold as to post anything other than standard, uniformitarian, evolutionist fare, is for fifty articles to appear in reply, each calling him all manner of things, idiot, fool, pseudo-scientist... Most people figure once is enough and move on; it is not reasonable to expect any one person to reply to all fifty tormenters.

Should the poster be so bold as to post such an article a second time, then he is a "liar" since he has been told better, BY his betters, the first time. The level of callumny increases in proportion to the number of such posts:




   [Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy

   btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University

   Ames, IA 50011



   When the poster posts an article a second time without reguard to

   any of the criticisms or errors discovered in the original post by

   other members of t.o, then he (or she) is indeed a liar because the

   person is posting material containing known errors.





   [Stan Friesen]

   Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be

   false.  When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be

   incorrect you are indeed being a liar (since you have been given every

   opportunity to discover that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this

   you must either correct the errors or provide acceptible evidence that

   your material is not in error.



In real life, of course, there is no such thing as "proving" something, but only such a thing as proving something to somebody's satisfaction. As to the possibility of proving something to the satisfaction of the t.o. group, as Friesen appears to imply is necessary to escape the dread status of liarhood:


   [David Talbott]





   "...a worthless and discredited forum"  (t.o.)



   "The pattern repeats itself over again, without the slightest willingness to

   question the theoretical framework itself.  On t.o it would not make any

   difference how many diverse lines of evidence were brought forth to

   suggest an unusual, unstable history of the planet Venus.  The entire

   focus of the t.o response would be 1) ridicule of the one raising the

   question, 2) separation of the "evidence" into isolated "issues" and

   showing that someone, somewhere, at some time had "explained" the

   evidence or the anomaly without resort to planets moving on irregular

   courses. To anyone coming onto t.o from another vantage point, that

   collective sense of mission--to refute unorthodox ideas by any means

   available--gives the appearance of a political campaign.  I do not see

   any sense of curiosity or discovery on t.o, only a desire to protect

   sacred territory.  And that, I believe, is why questions will not be

   entertained at the very broad, fundamental, and interdisciplinary level

   at which they *must* be entertained if one is to appreciate

   real possibilities outside the existing frameworks.



   "What I have seen in the case of Bob Grubaugh provides an instance par

   excellence.  After watching the way the discussion evolved on talk.origins

   one would have to be a fool to look to this forum for a serious

   discussion of *any* novel idea...





One who has escaped the dread t.o. sentence of liarhood the least is Bob Bales, numerous threads titled "Bob Bales is a Liar" or some slight variation from that running for weeks and months at a stretch:


     From David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org Fri Jan  1 05:57:30 1993



     *Who: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)

     *DA> "[I'm riping off David Rice's quote of the indefadigable

     *DA> Robert Bales]"

     *Ouch! That hurt. . . .

     *Even more damning, he implies that there is more than one theory for

     *the origins of species, which there is not:

     *DA> I'm afraid I must concur with Jim Merrit; the man is hopeless.

     *DA> (I) shows that Bales is mouthing formula phrases without bothering

     *DA> to understand what he is saying. I mean I you don't know the

     *DA> _definitions_ how can you debate? (II) is a GOD DAMNMED LIE for

     *DA> which everyone from Lionel Tun to Jim Loucks has been unable to

     *DA> provide and evidence at all. I guess that proves Bob Bales is

     *DA> not only a liar but a stale, unoriginal liar as well. (III) is

     *were one of the firsts. Since Mr. Bales wishes to worship ignorance,

     *propaganda, lies, deceit, and stupidity, he has every right to do



In fact, threads titled "Bob Bales is a liar" or some minor variation of that have gone on for months on end on talk.origins.

Now, a newcomer would automatically tend to think that I am imagining all of this, or at worst am describing the behavior of a small clique of people on the talk.origins group. Not so. The seige mentality which is evident on talk.origins is not a figment of anybody's imagination.

The clique which dominates talk.origins and which has developed the Ediacara virtual university www site sees themselves as heroes, doing battle with the powers of darkness in an effort to prevent a return to the dark ages. I once noted that, to any outsider attempting to present anything other than the standard lock-step glop on t.o, they present what amounts to a sort of a tribal reaction, what one might expect from a tree-full of crows confronting a hawk or a tree of howler-monkeys encountering a leopard. The crew has since adopted the term "howler-monkeys" as a heraldic device, or metaphore, and refer to themselves as "howler monkeys" as a badge of honor.

The us-them thing on t.o is real enough:




   From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins

   Subject: Us? Them?

   Message-ID: <1992Nov18.161846.15905@hemlock.cray.com>

   Date: 18 Nov 92 22:18:46 GMT

   Lines: 130

   Nntp-Posting-Host: cherry09

   X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]



   *David Rice writes:

   *> As long as I'm bitching and complaining. . . .

   *

   *No blame, no blame.

   *

   *> It is my observation that Creationists are not interested in

   *> providing proof, or even evidence, of their claims; their only

   *> desire is to out-last and out-shout, through attrition, the

   *> evolutionary scientist until the latter surrenders out of

   *> dispair and the sheer exertion of trying to educate the willfully

   *> ignorant.

   *

   *Unfortunately  for them, they are not going to ever succeed on

   *T.O.  For although they can always temporarily out post us,

   *even such ranting juggernauts as myself, they are in no danger

   *of ever outnumbering us, or ever outlasting us.  Or, of course,

   *ever outsmarting us.

   *

   *Over the past few weeks I have been making a playlist of T.O.

   *posters.  Of the following list, most of them have posted something

   *in the past few weeks, and of those that haven't, I am fairly sure

   *that most of them are still lurking out there.  They represent

   *all levels of expertise and knowledge.  They include Christians,

   *Atheists, Agnostics, at least one Taoist, and who knows what else.

   *But all of them, even Onar Aam, who was under the lash a few weeks

   *ago, have something in common.  They believe in something!  They are us.

   *

   *Yes, Virginia.  There is still hope.

   *

   *Following the "us" list is the "them" list.  It is kind of sad and

   *pathetic.  Please be gentle.  ;^)

   *

   *US:

   *Alan Feuerbacher

   *Andy Peters

   *Benjamin Dehner

   *Bill Anderson

   *Bill Gascoyne

   *Bill Hyde

   *Brett Vickers

   *Bruce Munro

   *Bruce Salem

   *Burch Seymour

   *C Frog (? does this person have a real name)

   *Chris Colby

   *Chris Lee

   *Chris Stassen

   *Corey (the reformed JW, I disrember his last name)

   *Dale Skiba

   *Dan Ashlock

   *Daniel Johnson

   *Dave Waller

   *David Rice

   *David Tinker

   *David Utidjian

   *Derek Abbot

   *Dr. Pepper (? another incognito)

   *Eric Shafto

   *Herb Huston

   *Jani Patokallio

   *Jim Acker

   *Jim Lippard

   *Jim Merrit

   *Joel Hanes

   *Karl (? last name)

   *Keith Doyle

   *Kent Sandvik

   *Larry Moran

   *Loren King

   *Loren Petrich

   *Mark Isaak

   *Matt Brinkman

   *Matthew Wiener

   *Michael Siemon

   *Mickey Rowe

   *Mike Huben

   *Onar Aam

   *Paul Keck

   *Ray Ingles

   *Richard Harter

   *Richard Schumacher

   *Rob Day

   *Rob Derrick

   *Scott Mullins

   *Seanna Watson

   *Seth Kroger

   *Simon Clippingdale

   *Stanley Friesen

   *Steve Linke

   *Steve Watson

   *Sue Bishop

   *Tero Sand

   *Tim Ikeda

   *Tom Scharle

   *Trygve Lode

   *Warren vonRoeschlaub

   *Wayne Throop

   *William Hamilton

   *.. and many others that I am sure that I have missed.

   *

   *Of the Them, still here:

   *  Kalki Dasa, Bob Bales, Ted Holden, Lionel Tun, Antii Siivonen

   *

   * Note that between this crowd, you would be hard pressed to find any

   * argreement about anything, other than that "Evolution is Wrong".

   * Kalki is verbose, Bales is in endless repetition, Holden is a lunatic,

   * Tun is Holy, and Antii is clueless.

   *

   *Long gone:

   *  Jim Loucks, Jim Henley, Ray Cote, C. Allen Roy, Chuck Maier, Michael LeHoullier,

   *  and the guy that promised us free copies of the JW "Life" book and never

   *  delivered (what was his name?).

   *

   * I'm sure some of you could certainly add to this list.

   *

   *So,

   *

   *> It's all a matter of attrition. When enough of the educated give

   *> up defending science from the psudo-science called Creationism

   *> (due to time constraint, money constraint, dying, apathy), the

   *> forces of ignorance takes up the slack. And the ignorant ALWAYS

   *> outnumber the real scientists.

   *

   *Not here, my friend, not here.  Keep the faith.

   *

   *Remember Arkansas!

   *

   *--

   *rob derrick                             robd@cherry.cray.com



A seige mentality? Face it: that ought to be the DEFINITION of seige- mentality which you see in Websters, i.e. they ought to SELL that TO Websters...



II.

Other People's Opinions

How do others see them? If some of what I get via email and some of what I see on t.o on the odd occasion are any indication, somewhat differently than they see themselves, to say the least:

1. "By the way, those goons over on talk.origins have been running others off for at least 7 or 8 years (that's when I first tried to see what was going on there). It has never been friendly territory

2. "I don't have a clue what catastrophism is, but I know how obnoxious the howler monkeys are and so I support forming a moderated group to allow discussion without the disruption that they like to create.

3. "I don't know how you do it, Ted. You keep hanging in there year after year, dishing it right back at the t.o regulars. I get tired of it rather quickly.

4. "...a worthless and discredited forum" (t.o.)

5. Yes, talk.origins is a rude, venomous place, and largely futile, just as you say.... The problem is, the place is so bad, so repetitive, so trashy, that most anyone with a mind would not waste time even sorting through to find the few gems. Most people who take origins seriously end up leaving t.o for more productive discussion places...

6. Look folks, I am not sure what the normal procedure here on talk.origins is, but this is my first time here, and I got here accidentally (through a thread started on alt.rush-limbaugh), but I get the impression that you folks wait around for some innocent and then land on him with both feet. I have tried my best, in all debates, to be civil with people with 2 recent exceptions: #1 a free-speech discussion in a.r-l, and #2 some guy who accused me of sending out my posts without linefeeds (which I always do), and some of you are not debating civilly. I have, since yesterday, received about 12-15 e-mails telling me just how stupid I am. Now I don't want to blame the whole bunch of you for the actions of a few, but as the number of that few rises into many more than a few, I begin to find it difficult to have a civil debate with you folks. I'm not sure what tack I should persue, but at the very least, this discussion clearly belongs in your group and not in a.r-l. I will read and try to respond to todays cross-postings, but will re-direct forwards to t.o. The problem is that I do not read t.o, so perhaps you can get together and choose one or two of your more civil participants and we can persue this debate through e-mail.

Let me assure you though, that the actions of a few of your members have gotten downright nasty, and I am not referring to simple discussion of the points of debate, I am talking about multiple references to my personal character and that of my family. If you want to debate, fine, as anyone in a.r-l will confirm, I am mostly civil and willing to debate any topic. If, however, you are simply surfing the net, looking for new whipping-boys, you can count me out.

7. I have removed this from alt.christnet.bible since it does not belong there.

I thought I was quite specific in what I said. Apparently you have a real problem understanding english. I suggest you try english 101 as a start and then see if you can understand what I wrote. There is nothing civil about any reply from t.o. The whole group has no understanding what-so-ever of that word. The only words you really understand are *nit* and *pick*. Although you do very well with: *I disagree* regardless of what the original post contained. Remember, it is only your opinion that his ideas are unfounded, he does not think they are. There is never any exchange of ideas/info with t.o, it's only: You are wrong because ... Please note that I do not read t.o so any replies to this will be unseen by me.

8. >Let's try to make a fresh start. What is it that you think makes >evolution impossible? Or is this an insult?

I will answer your question in two different ways, one for each newsgroup.

First, in the style of alt.brother-jed: I never said evolution is impossible. That claim was made by the originator of this thread. I think maybe you've misread the message headers.

Second, in the style of talk.origins: If you don't know how to read message headers, then you must be totally ignorant of how newsgroups work, and thus you are not competent to enter into a discussion of anything. Go RTFM, and come back when you have a clue.

9. I believe that Ted Holden has a valid point when he observes that many folks who would otherwise be tempted to contribute to the debate decline for the simple reason that they know they will be the victims of invective and name-calling at the hands of the t.o. regulars. A classic example of this phenomenon occurred this past summer, when Larry Moran--a distinguished geneticist and author of leading textbooks in the field--was greeted with the most outrageous abuse simply for supporting a relatively innocuous statement of your's truly. As a result of this incident, Dr. Moran subsequently became embroiled in an incredibly acromonius debate. Needless to say, I would hate to see someone like Dr. Moran--certainly one of those most capable of contributing to a thoughtful discussion of the problems attending modern evolutionary theory-- being shouted down by an obnoxious majority. Or worse, being discouraged from offering his opinion upon a particular matter for fear of the consequences.

This tendency to watch for any discussion of evolution anywhere on the net, and then invade other groups, jumping on participants of the other groups with their usual 50-1 numbers, has sparked at least one attempt to ban talk.origins from cross-posting altogether:




   From: larrys@alpha.zk3.dec.com (Larry Smith)
   Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,
   talk.origins,rec.arts.puppetry
   Subject: RFD: talk.origins moderation
   Followup-To: news.groups
   Date: 19 Jul 1995 17:53:35 -0400
   Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
   Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
   Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
   Message-ID: <3ujusv$jip@rodan.UU.NET>



                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    moderated group talk.origins (moderates existing unmoderated group)



   PROPOSED GROUP:
     Name:    talk.origins
     Status:  robomoderated
     Short:   For endless religious and scientific arguments about origins.

   RATIONALE:

   This proposal is to retro-moderate talk.origins to install a robo-
   moderator that will prohibit all crossposting to talk.origins.  This
   script will insure the endless flamewar that occupies all of talk.
   origin's time will never again be carelessly crossposted to quiet
   low-volume newsgroups entirely unconcerned with talk.origins focus
   or charter.  The Charter of the group will be otherwise unaffected.

   CHARTER:

   Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).

   OPERATION

   Any post containing any newsgroup besides talk.origins in the
   Newsgroups line will be rejected.

   DISTRIBUTION

     talk.origins
     rec.arts.puppetry 
   --
   Larry Smith --- My opinions only.




III. "Bandar-Log"

Most people would not want their names mentioned in the same breath as talk.origins hence the general anonimity of the citations above. In the cases of myself and Peter Nyikos, it doesn't matter. Again, I once noted that the talk.origins "crew" reacts to outsiders in something like the manner in which a tree full of crows reacts to a hawk, or a tree full of howler-monkeys to a big cat of some sort, and the crew long since adapted this designation, i.e. howler monkeys, as a badge of honor, referring to their regional meetings as "howler-fests".

Peter Nyikos has adapted one of Rudyard Kipling's terms to what he sees as the worst of them, thus:


   CC: Ben, because he says he has me killfiled and this may be
   the only way to get him to learn my criteria.

   btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:

   >       I've been watching these threads for some time now, but I haven't
   >been reading them.  So I has to ask: what is the bandar-log?  I get the
   >impression that it is a list of people that one Peter Nyikos doesn't like.

   That is the impression the current members and prospective
   members would like for everyone to have, but the situation
   is quite otherwise:



                           THE BANDAR-LOG





   These are people on talk.origins who freely indulge in apparent dishonesty
   and dissimulation; who demonstrate strong double standards
   vis-a-vis other Bandar-Log members or their allies on the
   one hand and those who attack them on the other; and who
   use dirty debating tactics such as (to take just two of
   many possible examples) (1) running away when called
   on to support their allegations, or (2) making allegations whose
   credibility depends on their monitoring the posts of the accused
   a great deal, coupled with claims that the posts of the accused
   are hardly being read any more by the accuser.

                           THE BANDAR-LOG

   Don Cates    Wesley Ellsbery    Wade Hines     Mark Isaak
   Steve LaBonne      Dan Lapin     Alexey Merz     Tero Sand
   Jeffrey Shallit   Michael Siemon    Drew Talley    Matt Wiener

   Prime Candidates:

   Chris Colby      Paul J. Gans     Chris Stassen     Evan Steeg
   C C Wood    "killer yeast", aka Vladmeister



....



Nyikos is obviously more selective than I am; I would include anybody whose name is mentioned either on the Ediacara/Toromanura WWW system or on the "us" ledger of the us/them list noted above.


IV.

Evolutionists and Free Speech...

I have no real idea whether or not evolutionists generally have the same attitude towards freedom of speech or freedom of information which one observes amongst the bandar-log; it would certainly be appaling were that the case.

Again, sci.bio.evolution is totally censored, and talk.origins could be called de-facto censored since outsiders are routinely driven off by the conduct of the bandar-log. But it doesn't stop there.

The bandwidth of the internet is mostly wasted; talk.origins itself could not possibly have more than a 1% signal-to-noise ratio and this is common knowledge, but it is precisely the posts which come closest to being pure signal which draw the most flak, not in terms of abusive response, but in actual complaints both to the poster and at times to the poster's service provider.

Evolutionism and uniformitarianism are ground into students' heads beginning at an early age. For any sort of a case to be made effectively against that and/or against the constant reenforcement of those doctrines in a forum like talk.origins, that case must be massively documented. For that reason, WalterAlter has taken to posting a number of large catastrophist peices serially and I retain several large files which I post occasionally, most notably Charles Ginenthal's article on evidence of global flood. It is, in particular, an item of religious faith amongst most scientists that the global flood,described insuch great detail not only in the bible but in Hesiod and Ovid's works and elsewhere in classical literature, is a fairytale.

Ginenthal's article massively refutes that belief and, occasionally when one of the bandar-log repeats the claim that there is no geological evidence of any global flood, I post it in reply. The fun begins at that point.

The bandar-log do not attempt to refute the post on content; rather, they begin posting numerous articles accusing me of something akin to mail-bombing them, actually claiming that, because they are not technically equipped to handle or otherwise deal with such large posts (2000 lines or so), that I should refrain from any such posting. Naturally, they make no mention of how they manage to deal with the other 99.9% of the bandwidth of talk.origins (the noise part)...

They are saying, since they either cannot figure out how to simply not click on a particular article, the way a normal person would, or because they are using primitive software on both client and server side which positively sends EVERYTHING in the stream of a newsgroup they are trying to read to them, then I do not have the right to post anything beyond a certain size.

A firearm manufactured along lines similar to what they are describing would fire at least once every five or ten minutes or so, regardless of whether it was being carried in the field or sitting in the owner's guncabinet, regardless of whether it was pointed at the ground or in a dangerous direction, and would load itself if it was not already loaded when it felt like firing. I would never own such a firearm, and I cannot picture anybody owning such software.

Sample flammage from the last series of exchanges:

[Weller crybaby act...]




[Holden]

: >> You are paying for your own incompetence and that of your service

: >> provider and not for any doings of mine.  To ask me to refrain from

: >> posting articles not to your liking because you are too lame to procure

: >> reasonable email/news software is obviously ludicrous, but then we've

: >> been through this little dance before, haven't we.  My sympathy for you

: >> and your plight has not increased an iota since last time.



[Weller again]

: >What an idiot you are.  I have no idea what your comment about my

: >service provider means, and there is *no* software for my computer

: >that will let me look at headers only offline and choose which to

: >download.



[Holden]

: Let me guess:  You have an Orang model 0 computer made in Borneo by

: Orangutans, running VMS which Carl Luddite helped you set up...



[Rennie]

No Ted, I imagine he has a PC like the rest of us.  But since you seem to

have some magical software that lets someone see an article

WITHOUT HAVING TO DOWNLOAD IT AND THEREBY INCUR INCREASED PHONE

CHARGES, maybe you can share it with us.

I assume that Rennie sees ordinary, competently written software as magical in something like the same manner in which lower animals see cars and other human contrivances as magical.

But it gets better:


[Mark Isaak]

>Second, why do you propose a flood at all when there is absolutely no

>evidence for one, and multitudinous evidence against one?  If you do have

>evidence for a global flood, where is it?



[Holden reposts Ginenthal flood article in legitimate response]



[Pim Van Meurs (email item to Holden and, apparently, to

postmaster@digex]



  Message-Id: <9601260039.AA02542@corona.pmel.noaa.gov>

  Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:37:03 -0800

  From: pim@pmel.noaa.gov (pim van meurs)

  To: medved@access5.digex.net, postmaster@digex.net, root@access5.digex.net

  Subject: Complaint of netabuse

  Newsgroups: talk.origins

  Status: RO



  (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:

  talk.origins)



  A user at your site, Ted Holden (medved) has posted the following 2171

  line posting to the same newsgroup within the timespan of two days.



  I consider this an abuse of net-etiquette and I urge you to look into

  these matters as posting such spams cost us all.



  Regards



  Pim van Meurs

The objective here is clearly to prevent newcomers and those not familiar with evidence for a global flood from ever seeing such evidence. Whatever the evidence of ideological similarities between evolutionism and communism, the tactics appear to be the same.

Beyond that, obviously, Van Meurs missed his calling by 60 years or so; the following is quoted from an item in the anti-stukachi www page:

THE STORY OF PAVLIK MOROZOV

In the 1930's, Stalin attempted to eliminate independent Russian peasants by confiscating all of their grain supply and forcing them to become kolkhoz serfs. Millions of peasants starved to death during this "collectivization".

Pavlik (Pavel Trofimovich) Morozov was born in 1918 in the village of Gerasimovka in Verkhne-Tavdinski rayon of Sverdlovsk(????new name???) oblast'. Pavlik was the chairman of the pioneer organization in his school. In 1932 the little stukach Pavlik Morozov denounced his own father to a representative of Communist Party raykom for hiding some grain that was supposed to be taken away ("khlebozagotovki"). Pavlik served as a witness at his father's trial and condemnded him as a traitor. His father was executed by the Soviets. At a general meeting in the village, Pavlik pointed out to the authorities other peasants who hid grain, and helped the OGPU search their homes. On Sept. 3, 1932, Pavlik's own grandfather killed him with an axe. The grandfather and other family members were also executed by the Soviets.

Stukach Pavlik Morozov, who denounced his own father, became a hero to Soviet children. The "kolkhoz" organized in the village of Gerasimovka was named after Pavlik. Many schools and "Palaces of pioneers" were named after him.


V. The Problem

The problem, for newcomers who have not figured it out, is that there are two general categories of main usenet groups, and that they are treated differently and command differing degrees of respect on large numbers of usenet sites.

Sci.bio.evolution and talk.origins are part of what is refferred to as the big-7 hierarchy, including all talk-dot, rec-dot, sci-dot, misc-dot, comp-dot, and a couple of other kinds of groups which were around from the beginnings of the Internet. These groups are almost automatically carried in university and many other sites, i.e. the free ride I spoke of earlier. Setting up a new group in the big-7 hierarchy is a complex process and involves a usenet voting procedure which can take several months, and which is weighted against anything controversial to the old-guard powers of the net in that a 2-1 weight of aye versus nay votes is required to start a new group.

The alt groups are easier to set up, requiring no voting or formal procedures, but it is up to each individual system and its administration as to whether any particular new alt group will be carried.

Anybody familiar with the game of football will instantly see what the problem is here. The entire battle for the minds of men in the particular instance of evolution/creation and/or any other sort of similar origins-related issues, as it appears on the Internet, is being fought on an uneven field. Picture the NCAA allowing Oklahoma, for instance, to slope the playing field at Norman by six feet from one end to the other end, and so arrange the rules as to have themselves running downhill on offense for all four quarters of every game, and the opposition running uphill.

"Can't picture that very easily...", you say. "Must be something we can do about that...", you wonder.


VI. A Potential Solution and Message to Jerry Falwell

As a matter of fact there is. It wouldn't exactly be EASY to do, but it wouldn't be impossible either. I could not be the one to bring this particular stunt off for a number of reasons, mainly that it would be far too flagrant, and I simply do not have the time for it. A certain minimal amount of organizational skills would be required.

I mean, what the hey? If the fricking unibomber can post instructions for actually/physically blowing up universities on the net, there's no conceivable reason why I can't post instructions for (figuratively) blowing up the worst riff-raff and canaille IN those universities.

I feel that a strong law of averages says that somewhere during 1996, this FAQ will fall into the hands of Jerry Falwell and/or one or more of his minions down at Liberty University, or possibly somebody of like mind and similar talents elsewhere in our fair land.

Jerry, this one is for you. There is nothing in this world which you could do or accomplish in 1996, or even think of doing or accomplishing in 1996, which would cause the devil more pain and anguish than getting rid of both talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution on the Internet. This would require little if any of your personal attention and could be seen as a project for a group of five or ten of your senior-class students.

The same voting procedure which is used to create new groups in the big-7 hierarchy can be used to remove groups FROM the big-7 hierarchy. The RFD (Request For Discussion) noted above which attempted to retro-moderate talk.origins comes close to what is needed.

All such activities normally transpire on news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. The procedure calls for an RFD (Request For Discussion) to take place on news.groups and news.announce.newgroups for a certain period of time, typically 30 days or thereabouts, followed by an RFV (Request For Votes), followed by a voting period of two or three weeks.

Anybody with a valid Internet account can vote in these events.

My own estimate, derived from the one similar test of voting strength which has occurred to my knowledge, is that it would take something like 1000 votes to eliminate t.o. and s.b.e., and that 2000 votes would practically guarantee it. Of course, 1,000,000 votes for such a thing wouldn't be ...

Again, such a move would amount to no more than levelling the playing field. The canaille of t.o. (Howler Monkeys/bandar-log as some call them) and of s.b.e. would quickly set up their own alt groups to replace the two lost sanctuaries, but the blow to their egos would be permanent, and the free ride of one side of a debate into American academia would be over. They would be on an equal footing with everybody else.

What is seen on talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution is last vestages of a fading sort of a freak/geek culture which, prior to the current entry of mainstream America onto the Internet, has dominated net affairs until now. Believe me, they have it coming.


VII. The Fred Struss, probability, abiogenesis etc.

From: (Fred Struss)


>I thought I would take a moment and add my mathmatical thoughts to
>a discussion of the evolutiomary begainings of a cell. I will use
>the science of mathmatics as the basis for my foundation that
>the theory of evolution does not hold up to the scrunity of
>sciences truest discipline. After all.. add two apples with two
>apples and you have four apples. Who could argue such a conclusion?
>Evolution begains on the premise that molecules somehow haphazrdly
>encountered each other and lead up to complex chains and finally a
>cell. Now that much of DNA structure and it's functions are
>understood, we can apply probability theorems to this fundamental
>theory of science. To begain with... probability tells us that for 84
>molecules to be in a proper sequence within a DNA spiral is 2.08 x
>  10^(-51).

>In mathmatics this represents a zero probability for all
>practical purposes. I like to point out this only reflects a
>random association of C,G,A,T molecules in forming a sequence and
>not an entire cell. If we go on to apply probability for an entire
>cell coming into existance from just chance encounters, we also
>not only have to factor in C,T,A,G molecules but also the combining
>of ribose, phosphate, hyfrogen, 20 amino acids and more along with
>other essential elements such as mitochondria, lysomes, ect that
>make up a self replicating simple cell. While at the same time these
>molecules are some how forming chains while not being destroyed by
>such harsh mixtures as helium, boron, sulphur....and so forth during
>the early stages of the first cell development.

In other words, Struss is being kinder to the evolutionists' fantasy than nature would.


>Now, lets take this
>further mathmatically. Somehow during the beganing, a force had to
>present to force all sorts of molecules together till somehow they
>formed a survival sequence in an unsterail enviroment AND to have all
>the other essential molecules at hand ready to react at the very
>moment this sequence was formed..this includes phosphate, ribose,
>uracil, 20 amino acids..and on and on. What external force could
>had made such arrangements for molecules to react and form a
>replicating cell? And continue throwing molecules together until
>they were all in a proper surviable sequence ????

> AND have all the avaliable molecule sequences at
>hand at the instant they were called for in forming a more advance
>sequence leading persumably to a cell? Science says it took million
>of years of haphazzard encounters for this to come about. Lets see
>if this holds water.


>It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species
>would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400
>aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links
>(all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10^114.
>Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance,
>each containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D-                     
>and L- forms is 1 in 10^14,136 .

>Probability for 124 properly sequenced protein chains being formed                      
>by chance alone is 1 in 10^64,480.

>Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type
>molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10^78,616.
>To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with
>148,800 nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons
>for go/stop punctuation. Probability of forming one DNA strand of   
>148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10^89,280.

>Now....the probability for this one example of DNA amd 124 chains 
>to have formed by chance alone simultaneously is 1 in 10^167,896.

>WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL
>YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY
>ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a human is like 3,000,000,000.

>Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
>it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability
>for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone.

Of course, no amount of time would suffice for trying to overcome the odds which Struss mentions, least of all the piddling four billion years which evolutionists claim as an age of the Earth.

A billion is only ten to the ninth power; that doesn't make a dent in the numbers Struss mentions. You're still looking for an event with odds like 1 to ten to the 167,887 power EVERY YEAR for a billion years, assuming one-celled animals are supposed to have arisen in a billion years. That's asuming a cell might have developed ala evolutionism over a billion year time span without being destroyed by outside forces as Struss notes. Realistically, the cell would have to completely form from scratch certainly in less than one year.

And so we see that evolutionism utterly fails to get to the one-celled animals from the lucky dust. What about getting to man from the one-celled animals? I went over the four or five possibilities at the beginning of this article, and none of them come close to working.

The big problem remains the essentially infinite number of changes to states of greater complexity involving different plans for life, required to go from a one-celled animal to us.

Getting from a one-celled animal to a human being thus involves an essentially infinite number of impossible events, so that the odds against any such thing ever actually having happened are, in all likelihood, not only infinite, but uncountably infinite, i.e. the cardinality of these odds is probably that of the real numbers as opposed to that of the rational numbers. Therefore it can honestly be said that it is nearly if not entirely inconceivable that the human could devise anything stupider than believing in evolutionism. For instance, you could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and that would STILL be more intelligent than evolutionism.

Each of the limitless number of major evolutionary steps involved in going from one-celled animals to man is impossible from a programmatic point of view; what about from a view towards genetics and probability?


A coworker of Fred Struss' added the following note:

From: jas@rebound.win.net (Jim)


> ...viewing the response to a co-workers post on here (Fred
>Struss), lead me to probe deeper into the the possibility that
>Fred may have had a valid observation. Thou, I admitt he could had
>had phrased it better. Here is are some points I believe that were
>completely lost in the post.
>

>For the sake of argument, I will skip abiogenesis, and lead off
>during the Cambrian era. It's this period of time that 1000's of
>trilobits have been recovered and studied. These creatures have
>been found world wide in rocks up to the palaeozoic era. As most
>know, trilobits pose some awkaward problems for evolution.
>Principlly, their sudden appearence in the fossil record. Mainly,
>such a rapied emergence from the single cell Precambrian period to
>such an enormous sophiscatied life form complete with optical
>receptors and nerves for visonary perception. While this in
>itself may not sound like a big deal to some, it does demostrate
>that something other than just gradual evolution was at work. For
>gradual evoultion, one would observe many minor, or not
>so minor, experiements with the specioes development, such as
>diffrent eye structures over time. Clearly, they simply was there
>without any signs of previous evolutionary changes in form leading
>up to the complexity found.

>Because of such fossil evidence, a new theory was advanced to
>accomadate the evidence. This theory is known as Punctuated
>Equilibria. This was advanced for the following reasons in S.J.
>Gould's own words:

>1. Statis: most species exhibit no directional changes during their
>tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
>same as when they disapear; morphological change is usually
>limited and directionless.

>2. Sudden Apperance: In any local area, a species does not arise
>gradually by the steady transformation of it's ancestors; it
>appears all at once and "fully formed."

>Some would say; so what? I am here is that all that matters, don't
>give me no creation crap. The implications of this mathematically
>is that by the evidence alone, we are no longer talking little
>leaps in evolution; add a little here and there till everything is
>in working order: were talken major leaps not just in appearence,
>but on a DNA level to bring this all about.



>There is 1,000's if not million's  of nucleotides that must be
>directed to line up in a specific sequence. There is enormous
>alignments as well as additions to the genetic code from
>Gigantopithecus to Australopithecus for example. If there was a
>1% diffrence in the genetic bases of man and ape, that comes out
>to about 30,000,000 bases. With such enormous numbers of bases
>involved, mathematics become very relevent. Why? Becuse there is
>well accepted laws in mathematics that say if you want to talk
>about such feats, don't use "chance", "time","mutations" or any
>other defined event that must act in some random way to bring it
>about.

Not much (intelligent) the howler monkey crew could say to all of that:

From the belly-up dog (deaddog):




>Goddamit, did you honking *read* any of the responses in the
>original thread?
>

>You have made the following invalid assumption:  that there is
>only a single way to put a gene / organism together.  Your
>probability arguments are assinine if there are multiple ways
>to do things.  Guess what?  There are multiple ways to do
>things.
>
>The multiplicity of pathways excludes having to chance upon
>a single iteration of a gene.  Hence, your probability arguments
>suck.
>
>Get a clue.
>
>Non-woof

Belly-up does not mention that the results from the realm of statistics as noted by Struss and the failure of abiogenesis experiments in the laboratory are telling the same story, and the only ones saying anything else are himself and his howler-monkey brethren.

Time forms the final nail in the coffin of this FUBAR monstrosity. Given all of the problems already stated, the rascals who have vested interests in preserving the theory of evolution always resort to the Cottom Mather argument, i.e. that given "billyuns and billyuns of years", things that ordinarily make no sense at all not only make sense, but are MANDATED. This is essentially a "wonders of the invisible world" argument.

At this point, the billyuns and billyuns of years are starting to look increasingly like a fairytale. It turns out, that American Indian oral traditions contain numerous references to Indian ancestors dealing with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and American Indian rock art contains numerous accurate images of known dinosaur types.

Bottom line: having come to understand that the 70-million-year time frame for sauropod dinosaurs is essentially rubbish, which other scientific pronouncements on ages of things on Earth are we still supposed to believe?

Why does anybody still profess belief in such a system?

Phillip Johnson ("Darwin on Trial") sees evolution as having every defining trait of a pseudoscience. To me, it (evolutionism) appears astonishingly similar to a typical large-scale government screw-up. Like a typical government screw-up, evolutionism is simultaneously an insult to the intelligence of the entire human race, and unfalsifiable, depending as it does upon gigantic expanses of time to achieve things which are known never to happen in real life. Like a typical government screw-up, it is backed by every organ of American government at nearly all levels, it is rammed down the throats of ordinary people who want no part of it, and it appears to have the enthusiastic and zealous support of every asshole who ever hears about it. Like a typical government screw-up, it is supported by hosts of "experts" with PHD degrees and no common-sense or judgement. And finally, like the original government screw-up of all time, the emperor's new suit of clothes, it appears to be mainly defended by vicious attacks upon the intelligence and judgement of any would-be doubters.

Most astonishing of all, its adherants feel perfectly comfortable with having evolutionism declared to be a fact rather than the botched theory which it is, and insist on its being taught thus in public schools, and then have the gall to cry foul when Christians and others demand that religious versions of cosmology be given equal time. This, to me at least, gets into a philosophical question ("What is a pig?"), but I won't go into that, other than to quote the following little item from Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial", page 144:

"The Darwinists may have made a serious strategic error in choosing to pursue a campaign of indoctrination in the public schools. Previously, the high-school text books said relatively little about evolution, except that most scientists believe in it, which is hard to dispute. Serious examination of the scientific evidence was postponed until college, and was provided mostly to biology majors and graduate students. Most persons outside the profession had little opportunity to learn how much philosophy was being taught in the name of science, and if they knew what was going on, they had no opportunity to mount an effective challenge.

"The Darwinists themselves have changed that comfortable situation by demanding that the public schools teach a great deal more "about evolution". What they mean is that the public schools should try much harder to persuade students to believe in Darwinism, not that they should present fairly the evidence which is causing Darwinists so much trouble. What goes on in the public schools is the public's business, however, and even creationists are entitled to point out errors and evasions in the textbooks and teaching materials. Invokations of authority may work for awhile, but eventually determined protesters will persuade the public to grant them a fair hearing on the evidence. As many more people outside the fundamentalist camp learn how committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuary."

And so, basically, there is no part of evolutionism which is believable. You've got a FUBAR doctrine supported by ideologically damaged people who mistakenly believe themselves to be scientists, and who insist that this doctrine be taught in the public schools at public expense, as if it were a fact.


VIII.

The Problem of Feral Chickens

Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero-probability events, in which a more complex life form arises from a less complex, and in which new organs, new life plans, and all of the systems integration which the new organs require with OLD organs either arise overnight (a miracle), or develop during a multi-thousand-generational process during which the creature involved is rendered disfunctional for at least a thousand such generations BY the evolutional process itself, and survives during that time on food stamps, AFDC, and other such programs. You'd not think such a belief system could possibly be made more stupid than that, but in actual fact the doctrine calls for natural selection, which the fossil record clearly shows to be a gaurantor of statis rather than change, to be the agency of all all the changes involved.

Consider the "proto-bird" (TM), a favorite amongst evolutionists.

This poor little creature is supposed to have somehow survived a thousand generation process during which it had neither functional arms, nor functional wings, during which it had enough flight feathers to look weird and be laughed at, but not enough to fly, a light enough bone structure to be kicked around on beaches, but not light enough to fly, and was generally an outcast, pariah, ugly duckling, and effortlessly free meal for every predator which ever saw it for 1000+ generations before it ever succeeded and flew.

An idea of how hard it would truly be for "proto-bird" (TM) to make it to flying-bird status can be gotten from the case of the escaped chicken.

Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that on many farms, these are not even caged. Consider the numbers of such chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history; look in the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants??

Why are there no wild chickens in the skies above us???

A flying bird requires a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including flight feathers, wings, a special light bone structure, specialized flow-through design hearts and lungs vastly more efficient than ours, specialized tails and balance parameters, and a number of other things. Now, you can imagine the difficulty involved for something like a dinosaur which did not have any of these things to evolve them all, but the feral chicken

already has all of these things!!!!!

In other words, if there's any chance whatsoever of a non-flying creature evolving into a flying bird, then surely, surely the feral chicken, close as it is, could RE-EVOLVE back into being a flying bird. They're only missing the tiniest fraction of whatever is involved.

They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine yards. In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are entirely similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition.

According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal flying bird, once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies.

But the sky holds no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings, real predators, real conditions, the imperfect flight features do not suffice to save them.

Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the entire journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it the last yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard.

The basic question is: How in hell is some velociraptor supposed to make it the thousand miles, if history proves that a creature which amounts to the final stage of such a development cannot make it the final yard of such a process?

Proto-bird (TM) is supposed to have evolved into birdhood via a process which lasted 10,000 generations during which, of course, he had front appendages which were not useful for running, jumping, flying, grasping prey, or anything else since they were in a process of transition while, presumably, living on welfare for 10,000 generations in the days of Alley Oop.

The brilliant t.o./Ediacara/Toromanura crew would have you believe that arms are really not all that necessary, and that having arms be disfunctional for ten thousand generations or so is really no big deal.

What about having your BRAIN be 100% disfunctional for a thousand generations or more?

Rick Lanier notes:

Some of the problems of Whales evolving from Land "urchins":

The cochleal bones of whales are made up of three membranes. This leads to great dexterity in the acoustic deciphering needed for low frequency navigation. The spriral formation of these 'ears' creates acoustic sensory organs much more sophisticated than any land mammal. The US Navy during the 60's - 80's conducted research using pilot whales and dolphins, for among other things, position tracking of torpedos and submarines. The findings were more astounding that seemed possible. The marine mammals could locate torpedos 5 times faster than navy divers using the most advanced acoustics the Navy had.

Why is low frequency important ? Low frequency only makes sense when used over longer distances, which take advantage of a perculiar characteristic of deep water,

Deep Sound Channels. Deep sound channels form because warm water above reflects down, cold water below reflects up. DSC's in between can carry sound great distances by use of these channels. The US Navy has been protecting your country for years by utilizing this fact, along with the triangulation effect of the SOSUS underwater 'hydrophones'. Now to the point, How could whales 'evolve' deep water frequencies while staying in shore? And the paradox, how could they survive in deep water without the echolocation mentioned. The documentary "Deaf Whale, Dead Whale" recently shown on Science Frontiers (Discovery) bring out the point of whale dependance on echolocation for its survival. In this documenatry they discuss how a whale was tracked througout the Atlantic using the SOSUS network. They were surprised to see how this particular whale was using the island of Bermuda as a navigation beacon., from great distances. The use of these frequencies by whales was the main reason that enviromental groups protested the planned use of Acoustic Termo Measurement (Using low frequency sound waves to measure temperature) in the Atlantic. The tests were cancelled.

Some would say that whales just went from shallow to deep water. Yet they have the acoustics for both. The high frequency 'clicks' used for in close sonar, and communication, and the deep water low frequency echolation used for navigation.

Remember, the sperm whale has been seen at depths up to 20,000 feet.

Whales need this echolocation for their survival, how could this have evolved from creatures not possessing the hybrids of these mechanisms, while it was in the water.

The possibility of mammals in the sea without coming from land would cause evolutions to take a powder, they need something that could possibly be an anscestor to be found on land....... Yes, that's it the Herbasaurus, er, Basilosaurus..................

I.e., during any period of evolving the mental functions which whales absolutely require for their day-to-day existence, their brains would be disfunctional.


IX.

Splifford Genesis

Likewise, any rational person watching insects fly can understand that on the day that the first bat ever snagged the first insect using echo-location, the echo-location had to work perfectly, and that such a capability could not possibly evolve.

Consider what life must have been like for the evolutionists' "proto-bat", attempting to develop echo-location over a multi-thousand- generation span:

This creature's life would almost certainly have been one continual, bad hallucination, from dawn to dusk and then back again, from the day he was born to the day he died.

Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory drug at the same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the very worst television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little evolving bat ever knew of our world.

And yet, the brilliant Ediacara crew, along with their brilliant FAQ system, would have you believe that this fatally afflicted little creature prospered and thrived and survived for thousands of generations, in such a state.

Whenever you see or hear somebody expounding upon evolution, or trying to indoctrinate kids in the "fact" of evolution, think about this poor little dinged-out bat flying around in circles, flying into walls, trees, the ground, his mind trashed either because he met up with Raoul Jose-Domingo Tokovar and they toked down a box of Columbian spliffs, or (effectively the same thing) because he was trying to EVOLVE echo-location, and was only 80% there...

Let's call this little bat Splifford. Some years ago, somebody rescued a little bear from a forest fire, and that little bear became a metaphor for the national effort to preserve our forests from careless acts and the tragedy of large-scale fires.

Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to save American culture, American society, and the youth of America from the mind-destroying evil of corrupt ideological doctrines.

Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org



|                    . .                     , ,                               
|                 ____)/                     \(____                            
|        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._                 
|     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.             
|   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.            
|  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |           
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.          
| |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
| `                      `       V V       '                      '            

Splifford the bat says: Always remember

: A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.


X.

Infinitely Stupid Ideological Doctrines

Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero-probability events, changes to states of increased order and complexity in our biosphere, and hence is an infinitely stupid ideological doctrine.

Friedrich Nietzsche had a lot to say about what he saw as the next step in human development, the Uebermensch; everything pretty much EXCEPT a believeable plan for developing or breeding him. I now know how that can be done. At the very least, I have a plan which would dramatically improve the genetic pool of the entire human race in one generation.

The plan requires what I would term an Infinitely Stupid Ideological Doctrine, or ISID for short which, while modeled on evolutionism, the only real-world example of an ISID, could not be evolutionism itself since that would weight the program in favor of the offspring of religious groups, rather in the desired direction of the uebermensch.

Nonetheless, a religiously neutral ISID would be devised using evolutionism as a model, i.e. the doctrine would require belief in an infinite number of impossible/zero-probability occurances as evolutionism does, require infinite expanses of time as an enabling mechanism for believing in things which cannot be made to happen in real life as evolutionism does, and generally be unfalsifiable as is evolutionism.

Moreover, to students at all K12 levels, the new ISID must appear to be supported in entirely the same manner as is evolutionism. It must appear to be backed by every organ of American government at nearly all levels, supported by hosts of "experts" with PHD degrees and no common-sense or judgement, defended by vicious attacks upon the intelligence and judgement of any would-be doubters, and in fact the new ISID must appear to be part of a winning program for the final victory of light over darkness, good over evil; people opposed to the new ISID must be cast as mindless "staroveriyeh", people who want to bring back the dark ages.

The truth and beauty of the new ISID must be drummed into the heads of every child in America from the day he is born until the day he graduates from high school by every facet of his existence, school, MTV, radio, the movies, mod clothes, beer cans... all should bear witness to the grandeur and beauty of the ISID.

And then, on graduation day, the kids should be brought into an interview room one at a time and asked "Do you believe in the ISID?"

The ones who reply "No" should be allowed to live.

I've already posted this one on talk.origins once, and the following exchange was worth noting:


>salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>

>>In article <3em6ce$8j@access4.digex.net> medved@access4.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>Friedrich Nietzsche had a lot to say about what he saw as the next step
>>>in human evolutionary development, the uebermensch;  everything pretty
>>>much EXCEPT a believeable plan for developing or breeding him.  I now
>>>know how that can be done.  At the very least, I have a plan which would
>>>dramatically improve the genetic pool of the entire human race in one
>>>generation.
>
>>       But Ted, it wouldn't be evolution. It might be politics and
>>eugenics, but it wouldn't be evolution. Indeed, you are obvioulsy
>>refering to Hitler's masterrace, such ideas lead inevitabally to
>>ibredded populations with low genetic diversity that are vulnerable
>>to extinction through the forces that cuase evolution. Remember, Ted,
>>Social Darwinism is NOT Darwinism, or evolution. It is a political
>>ideology that mistakes political and racial tests for evolution.
>
>One facet of communism was the new kind of person which it was supposed
>to produce, the "new communist man" so to speak.  One of the reasons for
>the current disenchantment WITH communism which has not been publicized
>in the west overmuch, has to do with this same new communist man;
>apparently there were a number of well publicized situations in which a
>particular incarnation of the "new communist man" ended up in some sort
>of a critical situation and screwed up in some sort of a highly visible
>and highly costly way, and critical analysts were able to fairly easily
>show that, yes, this guy really was what the system intended to produce
>as the "new communist man" and, yes, the guy really did screw up in some
>indefensible sort of way in a situation in which a normal person would
>not be expected to screw up, and yes, the whole deal was predictable from
>the nature of communism.
>
>The problem was that communism itself was acting like a breeding system
>for flawed human types, and then putting those flawed types into critical
>situations.  Basically, a certain well defined type of individual was
>succeeding in life, getting ahead and all that, and nobody else was and,
>along with all of the other problems involved, the entire system
>collapsed.
>
>Now the Holden/Nietzsche plan (TM) (Which is a pure fantasy by the way,
>i.e. don't try it at home) would invert the above process.  You start off
>with a doctrine (the only doctrine) which is actually stupider THAN
>communism, i.e. evolutionism as a model, devise a religiously/culturally
>neutral clone (e.g. the doctrine of metallurgical advancement, the
>doctrine of the great pumpkin and pumpkinism...), and then cull all of
>the losers who buy off on it.  That would have to have the opposite
>effect of communism and actually improve the human race.


XI.

Putting Religion on an Equal Footing with Evolution in Our Schools

This question often comes up on internet discussions:

"Should religion be placed on an equal footing with evolution in our schools?

The basic answer:

ONLY if the religion you choose is the right one, i.e. a religion AS stupid as evolution. The only two potential candidates I know of are Rastifari and voodoo. In fact, teaching Rastifari as an alternative to evolution would have certain benefits for team-teaching situations in that a teacher attempting to indoctrinate 30 teenagers in evolutionism could presumably walk across the hall to the Rastifari class for a box of spliffs (to get the kids high enough to swallow something as stupid as evolutionism...)"


XII. Funding for Evolution Research:


    damian@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian Hammontree) writes:

    >Franklin also happened to say:

    >       "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself;
    >       and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to
    >       support it -- so that its professors are obliged to call for
    >       help of a civil power -- it is a sign, I apprehend, of its
    >       being a bad one."

    >       --Benjamin Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754

All normal religions with one abnormal exception have been cut off from US government aid and banished from our schools for 20 years and more now, and are still there. They have passed the test.

Could evolution pass the test? Would the ideologues who support it so vociferously vocally be willing to support it financially.

That to me would make a hell of an interesting experiment. Let's take evolution out of the public schools and find out.


XIII. Questions for Those who Teach Evolution

Kids: You say that you or some friend of yours is presently undergoing the standard forced indoctrination in evolutionism in your school, and the guy teaching the class is a sort of a dork, and you'd like to see him act nervous and sweat and stutter and stammer a bit and maybe even go "Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi" like a weasel?

No, don't send him a Never-send-to-know-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-it-tolls- for-thee postcard; somebody might think you're a protoge or literary collaborator of Professor Tim Thompson's, and take you for an asshole.

Nor, for that matter, should you send him harassing or threatening email; somebody might take you for one of the t.o. howler monkey crew, which is even worse.

What you really want to do is ask him one of the following questions. You might even want to ask one of these questions every couple of days until the guy finally can't handle it anymore and either leaves town or finds an honest job:


1.  Evolution begins with the idea of one-celled animals somehow arising
    from inert materials (abiogenesis).  Nonetheless, I've read articles
    indicating that the probabilistic odds against even deriving one of
    the required chemical components of a one-celled animal are way
    beyond what any mathematician would categorize as impossible.  For
    instance, the following appeared on the internet recently:

      >It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species
      >would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400
      >aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links
      >
      >                                                        114
      >(all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10.
      >Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance,
      >each containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D-
      >                       14,136
      >and L- forms is 1 in 10 .
      >
      >Probability for 124 properly sequenced protein chains being formed
      >                          64,480
      >by chance alone is 1 in 10      .
      >
      >Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type
      >                                                             78,616
      >molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10
      >To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with
      >148,800 nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons
      >for go/stop punctuation. Probability of forming one DNA strand of
      >                              89,280
      >148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10.
      >
      >Now....the probability for this one example of DNA amd 124 chains
      >                                                        167,896
      >to have formed by chance alone simultaneously is 1 in 10.
      >
      >WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL
      >YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY
      >ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a human is like 3,000,000,000.
      >
      >Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
      >it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability
      >for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone.

The question is:

1.  How does anything beat 1 to 10 raised to the 167,896 power odds?


You have to figure proteins would be destroyed faster than they could
be created by any natural, undirected process, and that that the ratio
between these rates is again some sort of astronomical number.  Again
from the internet, Bill Anderson:



        15) There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to
        explain how just one single protein could form from any of the
        assumed atmospheres of the early Earth.  The necessary chemical
        reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that
        required by evolution.  Furthermore, each possible energy source,
        whether the Earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's
        radiation, would have destroyed the protein products millions of
        time faster than they could be formed.

And from Tricia Borawski:

        >Even  the question "Given billions of tries,  can a  spilled
        >bottle  of  ink  ever fall into the words  of  Shakespeare?"  has
        >become  obsolete  as  a result of modern man's  understanding  of
        >random mutation.    Till now,  this question pointed out odds  so
        >astronomical  that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility.
        >Now,  it's not even a question of beating ridiculous odds.    Now
        >we're  shooting  dice  which  deteriorate  with  each  throw  and
        >eventually self destruct.   That is, we're shooting dice (genetic
        >"messages") which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with  each
        >throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host
        >organism).   Thus,  instead  of,  "Can  you beat such  ridiculous
        >odds?"  the question now becomes,  "After relatively  few  tries,
        >will  you  have any ink,  paper,  or dice left with which to  try
        >again?"   Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will  be
        >destroyed  in the process,  it is impossible for the  process  to
        >even go on for any required length of time.  This makes it highly
        >questionable,  to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of
        >genetic  mutations  could beat even realistic odds--forget  about
        >the  preposterous  odds proposed  by  evolutionists.   Therefore,
        >whether  life  could  develop  in  an  environment  (of   genetic
        >mutations)  where even fully developed biological systems  cannot
        >survive  is really no more a question of odds than whether a  cow
        >could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth--
        >it's simply impossible.

The question is:

2.  How did proteins ever first evolve given all of this?

Again, Bill Anderson:


        16) If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by
        chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that
        they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living
        cell.  There is no evidence that there are any stable states
        between assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the
        formation of the first living cells.  No scientist has ever
        advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in
        complexity could have occurred--even if the universe were
        completely filled with proteins.

        17) DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes.  But
        these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA.  Since
        each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin
        of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other.  No
        evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation.

        18) The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein
        molecules.  The mathematical probability that just one molecule
        could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is
        far less than 1 in 10^527.  The magnitude of the number 10^527 can
        begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is
        about 10^28 inches in diameter.

The question is:

3.  How did the first one-celled animals ever evolve against all of that?

Suppose that God or some other creator created the first one-celled animals,
or that we simply split up abiogenesis and evolution into separate topics,
and allow evolutionists to defend evolutionism, and criminals to defend
abiogenesis (as punishment for their crimes), as a number of the t.o.
howler monkeys insist upon;  can we get to humans, given the one-celled
animals?

Millions of steps appear to be required to get from a one-celled
animal to a human, and yet we know that even one of the smaller
steps, such as between two different humanoid ancestors, involves
odds which begin to sound like those in question 1.  Again from the
internet:

      >There is 1,000's if not million's  of nucleotides that must be
      >directed to line up in a specific sequence. There is enormous
      >alignments as well as additions to the genetic code from
      >Gigantopithecus to Australopithecus for example. If there was a
      >1% diffrence in the genetic bases of man and ape, that comes out
      >to about 30,000,000 bases. With such enormous numbers of bases
      >involved, mathematics become very relevent. Why? Becuse there is
      >well accepted laws in mathematics that say if you want to talk
      >about such feats, don't use "chance", "time","mutations" or any
      >other defined event that must act in some random way to bring it
      >about.

The question is:

4.  While one might believe that one such step against those kinds of odds
    had taken place in all the history of the world, how is anybody supposed
    to believe that millions of such steps did??

Aside from the problems involving genetics and probability, there are
problems with what you might term programmatics.

Consider the "proto-bird" (TM), a favorite amongst evolutionists, even
as Porky Pig and Lambchop are favored by children.  This poor little
creature is supposed to have somehow survived a thousand generation
process during which it had neither functional arms, nor functional
wings, during which it had enough flight feathers to look weird and be
laughed at, but not enough to fly, a light enough bone structure to be
kicked around on beaches, but not light enough to fly, and was generally
an outcast, pariah, ugly duckling, and effortlessly free meal for every
predator which ever saw it for 1000+ generations before it ever succeeded
and flew.

An idea of how hard it would truly be for "proto-bird" (TM) to make it
to flying-bird status can be gotten from the case of the escaped
chicken.

Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that
on many farms, these are not even caged.  Consider the numbers of such
chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history;  look in
the sky overhead:  where are all of their wild-living descendants??

Why are there no wild chickens???

They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine yards.
In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly;  they are entirely
similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the
final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition.

According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly
finish evolving back into something like a normal bird, once having escaped,
and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies.

But there are no wild chickens.  In real life, against real settings,
real predators, real conditions, the wings and tails are fatal burdons,
and the bad flying capabilities do not suffice to save them.

Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the entire
journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it the last
yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard.

The question is:

5.  If, as we see above, "proto-bird" can't make it the last yard with
    our spotting him the thousand miles minus one yard as noted, how are
    we supposed to believe that he made it the thousand miles without
    our spotting him anything?

In similar vein, Bill Anderson notes:

        20) Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain
        physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by
        the world's best designers using the most sophisticated
        technologies.  A few examples include: the miniature and reliable
        sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the
        frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the
        efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the
        control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of
        the bombadier beetle, and the precise and redundant navigational
        systems of many birds and fish.  The many components of these
        complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a
        selective disadvantage on the animal.

The questions are:

6.  How are we supposed to believe that all of these animals survived
    prolonged periods of profound disadvantage during the lengthy times
    required to develop such specialized capabilities which would be
    worthless very late in the process of development?

and

7.  How is natural selection supposed to thus select on the basis of a
    hoped-for functionality, rather than simply do a random walk around
    some starting point for such a potential?

Again, from Bill Anderson:

        2) Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical
        variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog
        family.  A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day
        refinements is that there are limits to such variation.  Breeding
        experiments have also confirmed that these boundaries exist.

        5) Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic
        material becomes available for evolution.  However all (perhaps
        all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal.

        6) No know mutation has ever produced a form of life having both
        greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

        7) Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700
        consecutive human generations, give no basis for believing that any
        natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity
        and viability.  No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed
        despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.

The question is:

8.  How is a process which is invariably destructive in common
    experience supposed to drive evolution?

Aside from being unable to develop new kinds of animals, we observe that
breeding cannot produce antediluvian sizes amongst present animals.
For instance, the Argentinian teratorn, a type of eagle, had a 25'
wingspan, and weighed around 170 - 250 lbs. Nonetheless, we know that
Central Asians have been breeding hunting eagles for size and strength
for 2000 years, and cannot get them past 25 lbs;  at that point, they
start having too many problems taking off and landing.

9.  Why is that?

Similarly, enormous sizes were part and parcel of the game plan for a
number of animals which are supposed to have dominated the Earth for
hundreds of millions of years.

10. If 70,000+ lb sizes were such a winning ticket back then, why has
    nothing ever RE-EVOLVED into such sizes, given the tens of millions
    of years which are supposed to have passed between then and now.

Given evolution, you have to assume that human culture and language
evolved with man as man was evolving;  you have to figure that man was
speech-capable hundreds of thousands of years ago.  Thus, since the
Indo-European and Semitic groups show no racial differences and cannot
have separated from eachother more than a few thousand years ago, thier
languages should be very strongly related, nearly as much so as the
individual languages of the Indo-European groups are to eachother.

11. How do you explain the fact that they are not?

12. How do you explain the fact that Indo-European languages appear to
    have been simplified grammatically since the first records we have
    of them;  that they appear to DEVOLVE rather than evolve?

I've been looking at the official U.S. Government photographs of that
funny region on Mars called Cydonia, and you can get those images from:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/PhotoGallery-Mars.html.  They
show a gigantic five-sided pyramid, and a number of other pyramids
arranged in some sort of a complex and one more complicated building
with a triangular enclosed space surrounded by two straight walls and a
curved wall, and then there's this pedestal base with a humanoid face on
it, about a mile and a half long nd 1500' high.  That face is not really
one of us, but either a neanderthal or hominid or something like that or
some kind of a monkey, and the odds against monkeys or anything like that
developing separately on Mars is clearly astronomical.

Now, I've watched monkeys a lot and they're not really terribly smart or
anything, at least by human standards, and the questions are:

13. How did those monkeys or Neanderthals or whatever they were get to
    Mars?

14. If monkeys were organized enough to do that in the past, how did
    they get to be like they are now?

15. Why do we not find any evidence of a past simian or neanderthal
    culture sophisticated enough to get to Mars, or any of the
    infrastructure which such a feat would entail?

16. If we're supposed to be descended from monkeys, how did they beat us
    to something like that?


XV. Does Belief in Evolutionism Lower IQ?

Darwinism/evolutionism/"the theory of evolution" means that man and all higher life forms have evolved from single-celled organisms via an unbelievably long sequence of violations of the second law of thermodynamics, any one of which (much less the entire long chain) is nearly impossible, which (single-celled organism) itself arose from inert materials which somehow just got lucky. The miraculous nature of this entire chain of events is enhanced by the denial of God or any other supernatural agency to CAUSE the miracle.

That evolutionism is BS is, to me, so obvious as to require no proof.

The big question then, is: "Why do so many seemingly intelligent people, particularly scientists, claim to believe in evolutinism?"

Phillip Johnson notes that evolutionists have come to believe their own propaganda:


    "I wrote in another thread that dogmatic Darwinists should
    practice seeing themselves as others see them.  What I meant is
    that many outsiders see them not as the pure truth-seekers they
    claim to be, but as ideologues similar to their close cousins in
    the family of scientific materialist ideology,  the Marxists and
    the Freudians.  The problem is not so much that Darwinists tell
    deliberate untruths as that they believe their own propaganda,
    and interpret everything they see as confirming the ideology that
    controls their own thinking.

Marxists and/or leftist fellow-travelors? I'd prefer Rodney Dangerfield's term ("commie bastards") if I was going to describe the phenomenon that way, but I've met real communists and, messed up as they are, they're not in as bad a shape as the typical evolutionist, much less the talk.origins crew.

Which is not to say that ALL of these endeavors and all of their practitioners aren't plenty messed up... they are.

For instance, picture paying 3 kopecks na-lyeva (on the black market) for a dead light bulb; why would anybody do that? How about, because in the whold fricking country you can't buy a working light bulb, so you buy the dead one, take it to the government office where you work, swap it for one that works while nobody's watching, and take the live one home. Communist countries work like that from top to bottom. But, as noted, everything is relative. Communism does not produce universal and total brain-death; evolutionism appears to.

The starting point (raw material for an evolutionist) then seems to be a sort of a half-baked little nerd who doesn't really have the brains or talent for any legitimate nerd persuits (creative writing, computer science, physics etc.) and is nonetheless not suited to the workaday world of Ralph Cramdon and Ed Norton. With the universal demise of marxism, Darwinism remains as one of the few oases where this little schlamozzle can hang his hat.

And then, we get into the difference between ordinary and institutionalized BS. Ordinary forms of BS, like the aluminum siding game, prohibition, pyramid schemes etc., are capable of going away on their own volition after a certain period of time and, most of the time, they effect people who are somehow or other pre-disposed to certain kinds of things, i.e. a person who is reasonably smart and honest is usually safe.

Institutionalized BS, such things as the Ada JPMO, communism, Darwinism etc., effect everybody who comes within their sphere of influence, innocent or not. These kinds of things are characterized by power games and mind-controll on an organized basis; they are characterized, more or less, by some set of circumstances under terms of which, everybody or nearly everybody who falls into some category (lives in some country, practices a certain profession etc.) must profess belief in the system at hand and not deviate from its practices in order to earn a living and get on with their ordinary lives.

Dr. Johnson notes:




     "If you don't understand that explaining the
     origin of all that information presents a serious problem,
     it is probably because indoctrination in the notion
     that population fluctuation in the peppered moth is the paradigm
     example of evolution in action has a tendency to cloud the mind.

Which would have the evolutionists, ala the old Lampoon version of Lamont Cranston, clouding their own minds. Not so. The truth is worse than that: Belief in and/or involvement with institutionalized BS can actually lower IQ.

I know this sounds astonishing, but bear with me for a short while.

Those of us who have worked with or around the federal government have all seen this. Belief in such things as that Ada can be used to create large systems such as STANFINS, that the UNISYS 5000 computer, comparable in power to a 68030 McIntosh for $300,000 of your dollars) can handle 1,000,000 comm-driven database transactions in 8 hours, or that a system of procurement in which just bidding a contract costs a quarter million or more will do anything other than surround the government with companies whose primary strengths are bidding contracts and defending law-suits... These kinds of things can easily account for a loss of 50 IQ points or more in just a few short years.

The former communist world has far worse examples to offer. Indeed, one of their worst fears is that their entire gene pools might have been damaged by 70 years of a system under which a certain kind of person got ahead in life, and that that isn't the kind of person you'd ever turn your back on.

And then, we have the examples which t.o readers are familiar with: evolutionism.

We've got Howler Monkey 1 claiming that a one degree difference in polar inclination once made the Liakhov islands a verdent paradise, fit for giant herds of antediluvian or early post-diluvian megafauna. One degree is like from about DC to the MD. Delaware border.

HM 1 must have lost at least 40 points since he began professing that.

We've got HM 2, claiming that a elephant-like animal (a sauropod dinosaur), whose weight was mostly digestive system for handling leaves and other low-value foodstuffs, was somehow many times stronger than would be a scaled up version of the strongest man of our times its own size. That simply cannot have done HM 2 any good...

And then, we get a guy from the land of Beethoven, Goethe, Nietzsche, Schiller, Mozart..... a place where the dumbest guy in the village is supposed to be brighter than you or I:




[Holden]

>>           Which is not to say that the evolutionists there don't have some
>>sort of a plywood skinhead hall for themselves off in the woods somewhere;
>>just that in driving 2500 kms through the autobahns and towns and cities
>>from Koeln and Duesseldorf down and around to the German alps the last
>>time I was there, I didn't see it.

[HM 3 (vom Vaterland...) ]

>This does it! You sniveling dishonest hypocrit, since You, with Your
>jaundiced worldview and Your agenda worn as fact-inverting filter, Your
>invincible ignorance and prejudices along all available dimensions and some
>made up ones in addition, didn't see any, this is enough proof that there is
>no such thing?



[Holden]

You say there ARE plywood skinhead halls in the forests for the purpose
of housing evolutionists??.............



That's the straight-line equivalent of what (in American football) you'd call a hole big enough to drive a truck through. HM 3 hasn't been heard from since, probably because he's doing penitence in a monastery for getting wiped that badly by a lowly Amerikaner.

Belief in evolutionism is the difference; I have to assume that HM 3's mind has been radically detuned by long years of evolutionism and that, other than for that, a simple middle-aged businessman such as myself would be no match for him.


XVI. A Cure for Evolutionism?

How is anybody supposed to deal with people afflicted with such a thing as evolutionism? I mean, we clearly are not dealing with anything RATIONAL here, but rather with some sort of a psychic addiction. Quite obviously, LOGIC is not the answer; logic bounces off evolutionists like water off a duck's back. What I have come to believe is needed here is the same sort of approach which you use to try to reach drug addicts.

Consider the rapper Ice-T, and his efforts to substitute rap for the crack, smack, PCP, LSD etc. etc. which he sees on the streets of L.A. Ice obviously noticed Richard Wagner's use of music as a vehicle of REDEMPTION, and is trying to adapt the idea to his own settings. It is not engaging in racism or any thing like that to note there is something of a general step downwards in sophistication going from Richard Wagner's audience to that of Ice-T and, other than for that trivial detail, the basic idea is much the same:

Clown: Yo, what's up man, I need to get high, man,
       I need to get hold of some big-time dope, man,
       you know where I can get a ki?

Ice-T: I know where you can get a LP...

Clown: LP, man? Have you went crazy man, I'm talkin about some
       dope man, I need to get high right now man, why'nt you hook me
       up wit a five-oh...

Ice-T: I can hook you up with a twelve-inch...

Clown: Twelve-inch, man you done went crazy, you don't even know what
       time it is, out here on the streets an don't know what time it,
       man, you's a FOOL....

Ice-T  Yo, home-boy, YOU a fool, YOU don't know what time it is out
       here messin-up your mind, you know what I'm sayin;  THIS is
       Ice-T talkin to you BOOOY...  I'ma tell you what TIIIIIME it
       is...

       Yo it's time for me to pump up the volume,
       no problem the record's revolvin
       Evil's the mixer, I'm the rap trace the
       pack-o rats is on the bum-rush the pictures's
       ice, Julio, coldah than evah
       punk executioner, he pull the levah...
       rotate the wax, then cut an axe the tracks
       push up the levels towards the red-light max
       dont try to size up; you better wise up
       to the rap criminal, we're on the rise up
       we're sellin dope till we succed it
       dope beats the lyrics no beepers needed
       for this drug deal i'm the big wheel
       the dope we're sellin you don't smoke you feel
       out on the dance floor, an on the world tour
       I'm sellin dope in each an every record store
       i'm the king pin when the wax spins
       crack or smack will take you to a show-in
       you don't need it, jus throw that stuff away
 
       you wanna get high, let the record play...


Clown: Aw man, I like this dope here man, it's feelin allright
       boooy, what'd you say yo name was, man...

See what I mean? Stupid as it sounds, the clown has actually been REDEEMED.

Which brings me to the question of evolutionism.

The question arises naturally: if some cracked-out idiot like the clown above can be redeemed by Ice-T's rap, then what about the evolutionist, his mind obliterated by years of ideology abuse, his sense of logic and proportion vitiated by the scholatstical contortions required to maintain any defense of evolutionism, a pathetic, hollow shell of a once-humanoid creature? Is there anything which can redeem this cosmic ungeziefer?

I believe that there is, but the first thing you have to realize is that, however much of a step downwards was involved in going from Richard Wagner's audience to Ice's, there is a much BIGGER and more precipitous drop-off in going from Ice-T's audience to the evolutionists.

Something in the nature of a three-stage process is required; I will attempt to get the miserable wretches in this category up to the general level of sophistication of Ice-T's audience, Ice-T can take over from there and, presumably, for those interested, Richard Wagner can handle the final leg of the journey to something resembling modern man.

Clown:     Yo, I need to get high, man, I'm lookin for some big-time
ideology,  man, you know where I can get a PHD?

Ice-Bear:  I know where you can get a LP...

Clown:     LP, man?  Have you went crazy man, I need to get high right
           now, man,  why'nt you hook me up wit a peer-reviewed
           journal?

Ice-Bear:  I can hook you up with a feral chicken...

Clown:     You done went crazy, man, you don't even know what time it
           is, man, out here in academia an don't know what time it
           is, man, you's a FOOL!!!

Ice-Bear:  YO, home boy, YOU a fool, out here messin up your mind,
           know what I'm sayin?  
           This is the Ice-Bear talkin to you BOOOOooy, an
           I'ma tell you what TIIIIIIIME it is...

           Yo, it's time for you clowns to see
           the light, an stop fightin gainst reality
           so come on an step to me, an learn to deal
           with the diffrence tween fiction, an what's real
           c'mon develop some judgement, an the ability
           to deal with mathematics, an probability
           an infinity of zero-probability events
           can nevah happen, you see, that's just common sense...

At any rate, you get the idea. THAT, I suspect, is the right way to deal with evolutionists. Perhaps Ice-T and I will arrange some sort of a combined revival and try to salvage the crack-heads and the ideology freaks (evolutionists) together at the same time.


Appendix A. The term "Bandar-Log

The term "Bandar-Log" is unfamiliar to many people. It arises from Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book":

Mowgli had been trying to make himself heard by pulling at Bagheera's shoulder-fur and kicking hard. When the two listened to him he was shouting at the top of his voice: "And so I shall have a tribe of my own, and lead them through the branches all day long."

What is this new folly, little dreamer of dreams?" said Bagheera.

Yes, and throw branches and dirt at old Baloo," Mowgli went on. "They have promised me this, ah!"

Whoof!" Baloo's big paw scooped Mowgli off Bagheera's back, and as the boy lay between the big fore paws he could see the bear was angry.

Mowgli," said Baloo, "thou hast been talking with the Bandar-log -- the Monkey People."

owgli looked at Bagheera to see if the panther was angry too, and Bagheera's eyes were as hard as jade-stones.

Thou hast been with the Monkey People -- the gray apes -- the people without a Law -- the eaters of everything. That is great shame."

When Baloo hurt my head," said Mowgli (he was still down on his back), "I went away, and the gray apes came down from the trees and had pity on me. No one else cared." He snuffled a little.

The pity of the Monkey People!" Baloo snorted.

The stillness of the mountain stream! The coo of the summer sun! And then, man-cub?"

And then -- and then they gave me nuts and pleasant things to eat, and they -- they carried me in their arms up to the top of the trees and said I was their blood-brother, except that I had no tail, and should be their leader some day."

They have no leader" said Bagheera. "They lie. They have always lied."

They were very kind, and bade me come again. Why have I never been taken among the Monkey People? They stand on their feet as I do. They do not hit me with hard paws. They play all day. Let me get up! Bad Baloo, let me up! I will go play with them again."

Listen, man-cub," said the bear, and his voice rumbled like thunder on a hot night. "I have taught thee all the Law of the Jungle for all the Peoples of the Jungle -- except the Monkey Folk who live in the trees. They have no Law. They are outcastes. They have no speech of their own but use the stolen words which they overhear when they listen and peep and wait up above in the branches. Their way is not our way. They are without leaders. They have no remembrance. They boast and chatter and pretend that they are a great people about to do great affairs in the jungle, but the falling of a nut turns their minds to laughter, and all is forgotten. We of the jungle have no dealings with them. We do not drink where the monkeys drink; we do not go where the monkeys go; we do not hunt where they hunt; we do not die where they die. Hast thou ever heard me speak of the Bandar-log till to-day?"

No," said Mowgli in a whisper, for the forest was very still now that Baloo had finished.

The Jungle People put them out of their mouths and out of their minds. They are very many, evil, dirty, shameless, and they desire, if they have any fixed desire, to be noticed by the Jungle People. But we do not notice them even when they throw nuts and filth on our heads."

e had hardly spoken when a shower of nuts and twigs spattered down through the branches; and they could hear coughings and howlings and angry jumpings high up in the air among the thin branches.

The Monkey People are forbidden," said Baloo, "forbidden to the Jungle People. Remember."

Forbidden," said Bagheera; "but I still think Baloo should have warned thee against them."

I -- I? How was I to guess he would play with such dirt. The Monkey People! Faugh!"

fresh shower came down on their heads, and the two trotted away, taking Mowgli with them. What Baloo had said about the monkeys was perfectly true. They belonged to the tree-tops, and as beasts very seldom look up, there was no occasion for the monkeys and the Jungle People to cross one another's path. But whenever they found a sick wolf, or a wounded tiger or bear, the monkeys would torment him, and would throw sticks and nuts at any beast for fun and in the hope of being noticed. Then they would howl and shriek senseless songs, and invite the Jungle People to climb up their trees and fight them, or would start furious battles over nothing among themselves, and leave the dead monkeys where the Jungle People could see them.

hey were always just going to have a leader and laws and customs of their own, but they never did, because their memories would not hold over from day to day, and so they settled things by making up a saying: "What the Bandar-log think now the Jungle will think later": and that comforted them a great deal. None of the beasts could reach them, but on the other hand none of the beasts would notice them, and that was why they were so pleased when Mowgli came to play with them, and when they heard how angry Baloo was.

hey never meant to do any more, -- the Bandar-log never mean anything at all, -- but one of them invented what seemed to him a brilliant idea, and he told all the others that Mowgli would be a useful person to keep in the tribe, because he could weave sticks together for protection from the wind; so, if they caught him, they could make him teach them. Of course Mowgli, as a wood-cutter's child, inherited all sorts of instincts, and used to make little play-huts of fallen branches without thinking how he came to do it. The Monkey People, watching in the trees, considered these huts most wonderful. This time, they said, they were really going to have a leader and become the wisest people in the jungle -- so wise that every one else would notice and envy them. Therefore they followed Baloo and Bagheera and Mowgli through the jungle very quietly till it was time for the midday nap, and Mowgli, who was very much ashamed of himself, slept between the panther and the bear, resolving to have no more to do with the Monkey People.


Appendix B.


Total UNIX grep on " liar" for the DIGEX directory for talk.origins /usr/spool/news/talk/origins) for about a 1.5 month running tally.

136569:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
136569:world are all liars...
136589:>world are all liars.
136589: Oh, there's a difference between a liar and someone who has simply
136597:>world are all liars.
136610:can one be?! They are proven, repeated liars, as is amply documented in the
136642:Liar, liar, Pete's on fire: they are _also_ pathetic.
grep: 137*: No such file or directory
grep: 138*: No such file or directory
139815:explaination for that is fairly simple: You are an idiot and a liar.
139843:>explaination for that is fairly simple: You are an idiot and a liar.
139868:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
139868:world are all liars...
139894:*You* are the liar.
139942:of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139946:>>>Duh, like do we care, retard, duh, duh, duh, liar, liar, liar, retard, duh
139953:>and (what's new) to call me a liar.
139953:>world are all liars...
139955:> of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139975:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139975:people on this group liars.
139975:Flash poll: How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
139975:How many were called idiots and liars?
139975:I can answer first: Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
139981:of their close friends are blatant liars?
139982:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139988:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140031:>>>>Duh, like do we care, retard, duh, duh, duh, liar, liar, liar, retard, duh
140034:>>and (what's new) to call me a liar.
140034:>>world are all liars...
140081:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140081:Paul is just calling them as he seems them. Some who lies is a liar.
140086:>people on this group liars.
140101:> >people on this group liars.
140101:> liars too.
140148:>to before calling someone a liar.
140151:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140161:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140175:>explaination for that is fairly simple: You are an idiot and a liar.
140204:>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
140205:>>>> liar
140205:>>>> liar
140205:>>>> liar
140205:On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140229:intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140260:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140261:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140272:: of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140290:does not make you a liar (or vice versa), but rather just a difference of
140290:does not make you or me a liar, unless you activly engage in decpetive
140301:: of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140323:On a related note, are you stupid, or a liar, or a stupid liar?
140355:>intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140372:God is a liar! And funny how our DNA is nearly identical: just as
140379:>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140413:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140415:>intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140436:>> "It's wrong to characterize all creationists as cheats and liars who
140464:: Liar. You seem obsessed with it.
140484:and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
140497:Ted, I have never called you a liar. I have attempted to correct you on
140497:that nothing in my post was factual, it was an opinion, calling me a liar
140505:>>>You never did so. Liar.
140505:>Mark just prefers to call people liars.
140505:No, Mark just calls you a liar, which you are. Whether you
140522:: >> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140553:>>people on this group liars.
140559:You're either a liar or an ignoramus, or both. There was no "Nebraska
140586:>>>people on this group liars.
140642:>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as defined*
140742:> and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from
140742: I emphatically am not calling you a liar, and I am emphatically
140783:> : >> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140799:proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a smear
140845:>and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
140869:>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
140907:>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140911:you replied to. That you leave it out is proof that you are a liar.
140943:> and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
141029:>>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141030:>>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141076:>and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
141076:ReMine is liar trying to sell his book to a gullable scientific
141094:>*You* are the liar.
141232:> explaination for that is fairly simple: You are an idiot and a liar.
141242:: you replied to. That you leave it out is proof that you are a liar.
141383:> >people on this group liars.
141383:> liars too.
141383:You see, you're on t.o. too. So you're either in the half that are liars
141383:or the other half who are also liars. This leads to the 'I am a liar'
141403:>>*You* are the liar.
141417:Subject: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141417:Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141429:> of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
141439:: >*You* are the liar.
141470:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141470:>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141537:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141537:>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141559:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141559:say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
141559:Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
141578:>*You* are the liar.
141578:Of course, perhaps you are *not* a liar. Perhaps you are just mildly
141580:>>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
141588:Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141601:>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141601:have just proven you yourself are a liar.
141605:>>>*You* are the liar.
141611:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141611:> say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
141611:> Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
141643:> Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141643: I did not call you a liar here. I did not call you a liar on that
141643:page. I have not called you a liar in any public forum. I do not
141643:or see "fifty howler-monkeys calling you a liar". They can read what you
141678:>Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141678:context, I think that people would not have called you a liar (about this
141703:}Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141710:>>>>people on this group liars.
141738:>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141754:That you have made such misrepresentation demonstrates you to be a liar. That
141872:>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
141873:>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
141873:>On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141954:>>*You* are the liar.
141956:>>>>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
41956:common liar who *is* aware of his lies.
41958:>>>>*You* are the liar.
141959:>>>>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141960:>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141962:>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141962:> have just proven you yourself are a liar.
142027:been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142061:> >proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a
142087:: >>>>*You* are the liar.
142096:>>>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
142104:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142104:>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
142123:I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142123:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
142123:world are all liars...
142166:>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
142166:>people on this group liars.
142166:>Flash poll: How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
142166:>How many were called idiots and liars?
142166:>I can answer first: Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
142168:> >a liar and attempting to substitute nitpicking for science, which
142183:>proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a smear
142226: fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. (I hope
142288:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142289:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142292:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142362:> I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142362:or the posting will fail. 5) I have never called you a liar. The
142400:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142415:doesn't make you a liar, just ReMine. It only makes you gullible as
142417:>>>*You* are the liar.
142423:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142423:>say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
142423:>Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
142519:>>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
142519:>>people on this group liars.
142519:ReMine's writing style, but I know liars and scoundrels and nit-pickers
142519:>people on this group liars.
142519:explaination for that is fairly simple: You are an idiot and a liar.
142533:> : Liar. You've only been ducking it repeatedly.
142584:Of course, Ted doesn't do this. His variation is to quote other liars.
142597:>>>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
142599:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142599:>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
142638:>I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142638:> re-affirms gradualism, and (what's new) to call me a liar.
142638:> world are all liars.
142638:>world are all liars...
142691:there are no transitional fossils are either liars or idiots. Which
142789: liars on their side.
142793:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142794:>>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
142794:>> have just proven you yourself are a liar.
142842:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
143080:ridicule and not objectivity. I do object to being called a liar but then
143113:> >ridicule and not objectivity. I do object to being called a liar but the=
143160:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143160:>>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143160:And his words are a lie, unless he calls himself a liar.
143189:Hah! Either you're a brazen liar or you are seriously into denial as
143193:>>>>>*You* are the liar.
143206:not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143217:Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
143246:: been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
143276:>not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143352:> >not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143375:balance. I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143378:: Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
143395:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143395:|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143396:The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143485:>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
143486:>>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
143501:I'm glad to see you calling Tim Thompson a liar.
143642:> balance. I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143642: If Holden has no time for fricking liars, then he should shut up
143646:>balance. I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143701:>>not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143751:>>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
143751:>>people on this group liars.
143751:nearly everyone on this newsgroup that disagrees with him a liar. He
143751:has called Thompson a liar a number of times, amoung others.
143751:>>Flash poll: How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
143751:>>How many were called idiots and liars?
143751:a liar. I can tell you that I posted a note saying that I felt that he
143751:a liar. To date, Ted has not informed me of exactly what untruth I told,
143751:>>I can answer first: Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
143753:>> balance. I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143753:makes calling me a liar as part of the statement is insufferable.
143758:Uh no. I'm flaming retards and liars.
143758:I confess. I hate stupid liars.
143863:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143863:>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143887:>Nyikos is a habitual liar who chooses to ignore any rebuttals to his
143887:You are the liar, Ray. I did NOT ignore your lies about you
143887:>Hah! Either you're a brazen liar or you are seriously into denial as
143902:>Several of the HMs have called me a liar over this claim that no beneficial mutations
143965:No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
143968:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144035:call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144051:>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144076:: >No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144121:: Uh no. I'm flaming retards and liars.
144136:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144142:> Uh no. I'm flaming retards and liars.
144142:> I confess. I hate stupid liars.
144252:believe C.H. Hurst was a liar and deceiver of the worst sort, to
144281:>: >No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144340:>> I confess. I hate stupid liars.
144418:>call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144440:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144440:|> >|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144440:that MPW calls everyone that disagrees with him a liar.
144440:he disagrees with a liar (a retard, maybe ;-).
144538:> >call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144643:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144646:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144646:>>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144648:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144661:>>>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
144663:>: Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
144666:>>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144703:>: Uh no. I'm flaming retards and liars.
144705:> believe C.H. Hurst was a liar and deceiver of the worst sort, to
144749:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144752:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144756:I don't do followup tricks, liar.
144773:>> >not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
144823:>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144915:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144915:|> >>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144921: lmd@netcom.com | Liar, lunatic, or absolutely reliable first-hand eyewitness
145002:that Ted is a curmudgeon and not a plain old bald faced liar while
145141:for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145154:>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145189:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145189:I have seen that he begins to holler retard and liar in hopes that you
145189:>that MPW calls everyone that disagrees with him a liar.
145189:>he disagrees with a liar (a retard, maybe ;-).
145203:> for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145310:by calling them liars? I haven't.
145310:thereby branding others as liars, and those suspicions are taken
145410:: Liar.
145414:: I don't do followup tricks, liar.
145414:: Liar.
145431:>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145448:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145453:Subject: Re: Why Is Wiener A Liar?
145467:>>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
145507:He did not give his life. Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145582:>>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145596:=> He did not give his life. Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145704:as "deletia". (Assuming he doesn't want to be a Liar, natch).
145739:>>>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145760:>He did not give his life. Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145760:decides that he doesn't believe any more, he might be called a liar in
145789:I'd like to think I'm born again, but I also feel creationists are liars...
145822:LB: Rostaman, a man's a liar because you think and say he's a liar in
145928:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145940:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145941:what liars they are, and I am not saying anything behind their
145979:> He did not give his life. Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145979:that which belonged to you all along. You are not a liar; you are not
146024:and it remains that IMHO to deny science is to make a liar of God.
146024:If God's a liar, I have no desire to continue existing.
146039:like ignorant liars and fools. The vast majority of Christians
146109:> He did not give his life. Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
146115:> >: a couple of bozos calling ME a liar on the issue for disputing
146120::If God's a liar, I have no desire to continue existing
146120:You are saying that if god is a liar then you don't want to exist? Do you
146125:And I agree with Mr. Nyikos that Lapin is a toady and a liar (and an idiot to
146149:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
146199:>>>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
146225:> >for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
146225:while he may claim that government is a bunch of thieves and liars, he


Appendix C. A Picture of a Propagandist...


"Professor" Tim Thompson is the author of at least one of the erudite pieces of disinformation on the Ediacara/Toromanura/Talk.origins/Bandar-Log FAQ/FGU system. The following item, originally titled "HeyBoy meets ChengisXhan" shows him at his best...

This one begins with Tim (Hey Boy) Thompson and Ben Dehner stooging on the net for Leroy Ellenberger again. In fact, I don't believe in insider jokes all that much. Another poster once asked whether to address Thompson as Dr. or Prof. Thompson and I replied naturally enough that Thompson's ilk should be addressed the way Richard Boone used to address the Chinese porter on Have Gun, Will Travel, i.e. "Hey boy...".

Ellenber and hence also Thompson and Dehner (who likes to talk about scientific illiteracy) was making a case against the Saturn hypothesis based upon a claim that, amongst other things, the Rig Veda was 7000 years old and, of course, preserved astronomical knowledge which contradicts the idea of any change in our solar system over that span of time. Ev Cochrane, Don Lowry and others naturally enough noted that was ridiculous. Hey Boy replied:




   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic

   Date: 12 Feb 1996 23:30:52 GMT



   In article ,

   Ev Cochrane  writes:



   [ ... ]

   > In fact, I *do* know better.  Tim doesn't seem to understand that

   > Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim is tantamount to someone claiming that

   > Abraham Lincoln assumed the presidency in 3000 B.C.  I mean, the

   > claim that part of the Rig Veda stems from 7300 B.C. is so ludicrous

   > that only a fool could take it seriously.



      I am going to take the position that this is a fundamentally ludicrous

   statement, which cannot be justified or supported by any logical argument,

   or any scholarly research. Cochrane's analogy is pure invention.



and:



   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic

   Date: 22 Feb 1996 00:18:45 GMT

   Message-ID: <4ggcp5$4lh@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>

   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



   In article ,

   Ev Cochrane  writes:

   [ ... ]

   > Once again Leroy demonstrates his unparalleled capacity for

   > misunderstanding *his own sources*, something we've

   > encountered again and again on talk.origins.



      Pure propaganda; this is a crock. Cochrane has consistently insisted

   that Sidharth's claims required a knowledge of "advanced astronomical

   reckoning", "advanced astronomical concepts" and "advanced astronomical

   practices". However, in each and every case Cochrane provided no hint

   at all as to just exactly what he thought constituted "advanced

   astronomical practices", or "advanced astronomy" in this context. For

   all we know, Cochrane is claiming that we think ancient aryans were

   practicing quasar red-shift measurements.



      Sidharth, on the other hand, specifically said " *comparatively*

   advanced astronomical concepts", and then went on to describe exactly

   what he was talking about.



      Ellenberger has no way of knowing what Cochrane meant, and neither

   does anybody else. Cochrane just waits for somebody to complain, and

   then twists the words into his own favorite meaning. By doing this in

   a consistent fashion, Cochrane insults the intelligence of his audience

   and successfully demeans only himself.



   --

   -----------------------------------------------------------------

   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov





and then backpedals a little:



   >>> Cochrane is continuing to ridicule and belittle the argument even

   >>> while

   >>> admitting that he does not even know what argument he is ridiculing.

   >>> Certainly this is a thoroughly unacceptable practice.



   >[Lowry ... ]

   >> The fact remains that the burden of proof for such an extraordinary

   >> claim as a date of 7300 BC for ANY work of literature is on he who

   >> makes the claim.





   >   Second, nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC.

   >Sidharth's claim, such as it is, is that the astronomical content of

   >the Rig Veda could *possibly* preserve some knowledge that dates from

   >7300 BC. That knowledge is preserved in the form of descriptions of

   >astronomical events that can be dated by running the solar system, or

   >the Earth itself, backwards in time on a computer. Some of the early

   >dates for the Rig Veda are very solid (for instance, it is now well

   >known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated to

   >circa 2400 BC).





and then pedals forward some more:



   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic

   Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:45:06 GMT

   Message-ID: <4gl5g2$j0j@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>



   In article , medved@access5.digex.net

   (Ted Holden) writes:



   > Cochrane posted a massive response to this foolishness last week, which

   > clearly

   > indiicated that he knows more about he Rig Veda than you, Ellenberger,

   > and

   > Sidharth singly or combined know about it.  You'd do well to read it

   > before

   > embarrassing yourself further on this topic.



      Cochrane's response was not all that massive, but more importantly was

   full of mistakes and easily refuted. The only reason that I have not already

   done so is that I was away all weekend, and have had a very busy week. I

   hope to finish crafting my response this weekend. Cochrane's argument thus

   far is not very good, and I will embarrass both of you as soon as I can.



   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov



And then posted a piece of garbage intended to resemble scholarship or something like that, footnotes included. Ev cochrane replied:




   From: Ev Cochrane 

   Newsgroups: talk.origins

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic

   Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 00:52:48 -0500



   On February 23rd, Tim Thompson announced that he would be

   embarrassing me in the very near future.  Shortly thereafter, he

   posted a six-page document detailing his understanding of the

   chronology and astronomy of the Rig Veda.  Having examined

   Tim's document with some care, I am prepared to admit that

   I am indeed embarrassed------for Tim.  The ignorance displayed

   in this particular document is so abysmal, the level of insight

   so critically-challenged, that had Tim not expressly claimed

   authorship I would have naturally assumed it had been dictated

   by Leroy Ellenberger.  While a paragraph by paragraph analysis

   of Tim's document is warranted and will be complete by the weekend,

   the following will suffice to expose the level of "scholarship"

   to be found therein.



   Tim sets out to undermine my critique of Sidharth's discussion

   of the precession of the equinoxes:



   In article <4gon41$jkf@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,

   Tim Thompson  wrote:

   >This is my reply to an earlier post by Ev Cochrane.

   [del]

   >

   >   Cochrane continues ...



   >> Sidharth also claims of the ancient Hindus that "they knew

   >> of the precessional cycle, which takes about 25,800 years....There

   >> is a possibility that in the earliest Vedic times, precession was

   >> known." (p. 12). Once again, there is no evidence to support this

   >> view.  Indeed, so far as I'm aware, there is no credible evidence

   >> for knowledge of precession before Hipparchus. Here the learned

   >> opinion of D.R. Dicks might be cited: "To suppose that astronomical

   >> theory or observational technique had reached such a level in

   >> Philolaus' time that the effects of precession (about 50'' of arc

   >> a year for stars on the ecliptic) would be noticed, is quite out of

   >> the question, and it is now certain that it was Hipparchus

   >> in the second century BC who made this discovery." (Early Greek

   >> Astronomy to Aristotle, 1970, pp. 69-70).

   >

   >   Here, however, both Cochrane and the authoritative Dicks are

   >simply wrong. Hindu knowledge of precession is documented in the Surya

   >Siddhanta, a 6th century BC Indian document which pre-dates Hipparchus

   >(who lived circa 150 BC) by 400 years. Here is how Rene Taton put it,

   >back in 1957! [4] ...

   >

   >      "   Fairly accurate determinations of the sun's position by

   >      means of their nakshatra system enabled the Indian astronomers

   >      to notice very early that the equinoctal and solstitial points

   >      do not remain stationary. However, this fact was not mentioned

   >      in any text earlier than the Surya Siddhanta, which speaks of

   >      a libratory motion rather than a rotary precession. It has been

   >      assumed that this notion was borrowed from Greek astronomy which

   >      does, in fact, have a theory of that kind, but there is no reason

   >      why the Indians could not have arrived at it independently."



   Understand, it matters little to my theory whether knowledge of the

   precession stems from Hipparchus--as most authorities seem to agree--

   or whether it can be traced slightly further back in time.  The question

   here is whether it is *credible* that the ancient Hindus from the earliest

   Vedic times--dated, it will be remembered, to 7300 BC by Sidharth--

   also possessed such knowledge.  As I have observed, such a view is

   *incredible* in the truest sense of the word.



   This said, let us examine Tim's sources.  We'll overlook the fact that

   Rene Taton is not exactly a leading figure in Vedic astronomy.  And

   we'll overlook the fact that no quote from the Surya Siddhanta is

   offered to buttress the claim and to assure critically-minded scholars

   that precession is actually being described.  But there is one little

   detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta

   dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]



   This, my friends, is what we've come to know as "Thompsonian scholarship".



   Footnotes:



   1.  The following quote is taken from Tim's own source--The History

   of Oriental Astronomy, p. 140: "Surya-Siddhanta i.e., the Siddhanta of the

   Sun, composed by Latadeva (505 A.D.)."  Note that there were several

   texts which came to be known by the name Surya-Siddhanta.  The

   earliest, according to David Pingree, is the one associated with

   Latadeva.  Thus Pingree refers to "the Old Suryasiddhanta, a work

   known to us now only through Varahamihira's summary of the

   recension made by Latadeva in 505 AD."  See "Astronomy and

   Astrology in India and Iran," ISIS 54, 1963, p. 239.  Recensions of

   this "text" continued well into modern times.





Hey Boy (seriously embarassed) replied:





   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic

   Date: 29 Feb 1996 20:59:24 GMT



   In article ,

   Ev Cochrane  writes:



   > But there is one little

   > detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta

   > dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]



      Constant streams of insults are not necessary, it is sufficient to

   simply point out my errors. My notes are not clear enough, but I

   believe the c. 600 BC date came from Taton, though I will have to

   look again and see (something I will not be able to do until the

   weekend in any case). If I am in error, my apologies.



   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov



Which is not to claim that he won't go back to making the same kinds of cases and arguments ten minutes later. In the middle of all this somewhere, I noted that Leroy Ellenberger is turning up idiotic theories to hold up as one last-ditch defense against the Saturn thesis the way Von Helsing holds up the star of David against the vampire in Love at first Bite:




   Text of a typical mass-distribution

   postcard from Tim Thompson's literary

   protege, Leroy Ellenberger, dated

   23 Oct., 1995:





   DAWN BEHIND THE DAWN: A Search for

   tThe Earthly Paradise (1992) by Geoffrey Ashe





   "A lively, scholarly detective story In which Ashe turns

   his Inquisitive eye on the possible truth of a prehis-

   toric Golden Age." -- Kirkus Reviews





      Prehistorian Ashe claims that an Indo-

      European people, through contact

      with shamans of Siberia in the Altai

      Mountains 5000 years ago, created a

      hybrid culture that exerted a Pro-

      found, hitherto unrecognized influ-

      ence on Western civilization. This

      nameless people presumably absorbed

      such shamanic beliefs as goddess wor-

      ship; a mystique around the number

      seven, reflecting reverence for Ursa

      Major with its seven stars; and motifs

      of a cosmic center aasociated with a

      divine mountain. In Ashe's (Discovery

      of King Arthur) scenario, the Indo-Eu-

      ropean people drifted to Iran and In-

      dia, and ideas from the "Altaic seed-

      bed" were also disseminated through,

      out Mesopotamia,  ancient  Israel,

      Canaan and Greece and across Old Eu-

      rope with its Paleolithic worship of an

      earth mother goddess. One Altaic lega-

      cy, he argues, is seven as an ordering

      principle in ancient seven-planet as-

      trology, the musical scale and the spec-

      trum. It's an interesting but un-

      stantiated theory.   -- Pub. Week



   This book even better than J.

   Godwin's ARKTOS, puts the lie,

   albeit Implicitly, to that per-

   verse corruption called the

   "polar configuration," a naive

   concoction even Lenny Bruce

   would recognize as "the anti-

   thesis of everything right and

   proper intellectually," and

   thereby shows hpw incompetent is

   the "interdisciplinary synthesis"

   foisted by the "Saturnists" who

   are with no doubt cosmic poseurs

   par excellence.  One would never

   know from THE SATURN MYTH how

   intimately involved with polar

   tradition are the twins Apollo

   and Artemis, for example.

   Another antisaturnic is THE

   ORION MYSTERY by R Bauval.





Hey Boy first defended this thesis:





   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins

   Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...

   Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:33:03 GMT



      Well, I have been "ignored", entered into the Splifford FAQ, and now

   Holden even puts me in the subject line! It's noce to know he cares :-)



   In article <4ffnde$jtr@access5.digex.net>, medved@access5.digex.net

   (Ted Holden) writes:



   [Holden earlier ... ]

   >>> Again, the last or second-to-last postcard I got from Ellenberger

   indicated

   >>> that the golden-age tradition, along with most of everything else

   >>> Indo-Europeans know about religion and philosophy, came from contact

   with

   >>> Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains around 6000 BC...



   [Nyikos responded ... ]

   >> What is his source

   >> for this?  _The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus Christ_?  the "Akashic

   Records"

   >> which is the alleged source for that New Age fantasy?  Or some more

   ancient

   >> source, like the caveman for whom Boopsie was channeling on "Doonesbury"?



   [Holden now ... ]

   > Everybody needs friends, but with opponents like Ellenberger, Thompson,

   and

   > Dehner, we Saturnists probably don't need as many as would otherwise be

   > the case.



      I am not impressed, either by Holden's incessant derision of everything

   too complicated for him to understand (which, of course, means just plain

   everything anyway), or Nyikos's argument by sillification. It is not evident

   to me that either of these gentlemen care to think about the matter.



      I have not read Ashe's book, so I don't know what his argument is, but it

   should be crystal clear that neither Holden nor Nyikos know either. I am

   consistently amazed by the ability of some to ridicule what they have never

   even read. Since it is a common ploy for the Velikovskian to complain that

   critics have not read Velikovsky's works, you would think that they would

   have a care to not behave in the same manner.



   Now, would someone care to explain to me why it is fundamentally silly,

   or obviously impossible, for Ashe's argument to be wrong, something so

   obvious that it can be ridiculed without even being read? We know that the

   indigenous population of India was displaced, or at least conquered, by

   Aryan migration from the steppes region, somewhere in the 3000 - 2000 BC

   timeframe. We also know that we can trace the worlds oldest written

   languages

   to a similar timeframe. We also know that there must have been a long oral

   tradition before the advent of writing. Finally, we know that the pre-

   historic

   Celtic population in Europe had already developed a network of commerce,

   and had established standard 'trade routes'.



   This all means that we know there was a considerable traffic in both

   peopleand merchandise, in this area, well before the advent of written

   history. I see nothing fundamentally silly about the idea that this could

   also have included a traffic in ideas, customs, and oral-literature. On

   the face of it, there is nothing "silly" about this idea, whether or not

   it turns out to be right.



   This kind of argument, to ridicule as if it is "obvious", is not

   acceptable.



   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov



I.e. one should not ridicule the idea of western man learning all of his religion and philosophy from Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains.

Then, characteristically, hey Boy begins to backpedel just a bit:




   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins

   Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...

   Date: 14 Feb 1996 23:05:54 GMT

   Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Earth and Space Science Division



   [Holden ... ]

   > I.e. Thompson believes that Western man owes it all to Mongolian shamen.  I

   > rest my case.



      Now you all know where the phrase "Air Hed Ted" comes from. Personally,

   I would prefer a Mongolian Shaman to a delusional Russian psychiatrist.

   Holden's view of History, and his opinion of mine both qualify as emminent

   examples of "Air Hed" in action.



   No, neither I nor anyone else believes "western man owes it all to

   Mongolian Shamen". However, we know that what are now the Hindus of India

   started out as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, who migrated to India from the

   steppes region east of the Ural mountains. The Aryan migrations to India

   are dated around 2000 BC or so. They weren't Mongolians. But they

   undoubtedly brought their own history and customs with them on the

   migration. One of few the things we can be fairly sure of is that the

   Rig Veda, or some part of same, came with them, and represents knowledge

   and/or custom from the pre-migration period. That is the point.



   Air Hed Ted wigs out in public again.



   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov





And then a lot:



   From: tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins

   Subject: Mongolian Shamen

   Date: 21 Feb 1996 23:54:10 GMT



   ......

   .......



   The line about "Mongolian Shamen" is entirely the literary invention of

   Monsieur Holden. And that leads us to another fruitful avenue of

   investigation.

   As we see here, Holden is claiming that we are making claims that we are, in

   actuality, not making at all. Now, what is the usual word used to describe

   this kind of activity? In the best of pedagogical traditions, this is left

   as an exercise for the student.



   Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov





And then, some serious backpeddling:



   From: tim@ediacara.org (Tim Thompson)

   Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism

   Subject: Re: Velikovsky is wrong -- Earth's axial tilt must be ancient

   Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:51:28 GMT

   Message-ID: <4gl5s0$j0j@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>



   At this point I do not intend to mince words. Not only is Holden's

   statement

   obviously stupid, it is just another in a long string of deliberate and

   calculated

   lies told by Holden. I am not at all appreciative of his habitual lying,

   most especially when he lies about me. The "Mongolian Shaman" line is just

   another of Holden's typical fairy tale inventions, and neither he nor it

   are deserving of any kind of respect at all.



In other words, Hey Boy is seriously embarrassed by his erstwhile defense of his stoogemeister Ellenberger's claim of a Mongolian origin for our culture, philosophy, religions, cosmological ideas etc.

Consider the ultimate chieftain of the people who Ellenberger sees as our "roots". What goes around in life comes around; Hey Boy may ultimately have to explain his backsliding to this gentleman in some future incarnation. We don't really have a whole lot on Chengis Khan in our English-speaking world other than Harold Lamb's book. Russians, of course, got a somewhat closer view of the Mongol empire for several hundred years, and have a better feel for it. Allow me, therefore, to translate just a tiny section of V. G. Yan's "Chengisxhan I Batui" for you. This is a historical novel, but the breadth of detail is immense and a reader assumes it isn't far from fact.

Chengisxhan, in immeasureable amazement, put his hand on his mouth, pointed towards Jelal ed-din and said to his sons:

Thus should a son be to his father!

The Mongols, seeing the sultan had thrown himself in the river, wished to pursue immediately, but chengisxhan forbade it.

They massacred the army of Jelal ed-din, not before the soldiers had thrown the sultan's wife and mother into the river, to prevent their falling to the Mongols.

There remained amongst the living only the seven-year-old son of the sultan, seized by the Mongols. They brought him before Chengisxhan. The youngster, turning towards the kagan, fixed a brave and hateful gaze upon him.

"The seed of our enemies must be extirpated by the roots.", said Chengisxhan. "The progeny of such brave Muselmen will strive to slaughter my grandchildren. Therefore, feed ye my Borzoi hound this boy's heart."

The Mongol palach (head executioner/torturer), smiling to the ears with pride at an opportunity to display his skills before the great Kagan, rolled up his sleeves and walked over to the boy. Throwing the boy on his back, he of an instant, per Mongol custom, cut his chest open with his knife below the ribs and ripped out his steaming little heart, and carried it to Chengisxhan who, several times like an old boar raised the Mongol war cry: "khuu - khuuu - khuu, turned his paint horse and, dourly slumping somewhat in the saddle, headed further along the stone path.

From everything else I've read, that seems believable; that's how Chengisxhan might deal with an innocent youngster whose existence had simply become inconvenient. How he might deal with an unscrupulous and psychopathically dishonest propagandist, with pictures of Himler and Tokyo Rose up on his walls, I'll leave to Hey Boy's imagination.