Terrorist Trolls in the Blogosphere - Codes of Conduct and Free Speech Issues

I came across this on the BBC News - and I'm utterly horrified by it.

"The support for a blogger hounded by death threats has intensified with some high profile web experts calling for a code of conduct in the blogosphere.

"The female blogger at the Centrex of the row has been shocked to discover that hers is not an isolated incident.

"It has led her and others to question some of the unwritten rules of blogging. "

As I've said before, Free Speech isn't free - it's not some luxury granted to us simply because we exist: there are limits to all things. I've discussed this before, and I repeat myself - you simply do not get to burble or blurt out whatever you damn well please. Say like, threatening bodily harm to the president, or shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater.

Kathy Sierra is a Java Programmer, fer cryin' out loud, whose blog is anything but political (not that that has any bearing anyways), who has written or co-authored books on Java...but some of the commentary she's been subjected to is more than borderline disgusting. Indicative of some sociopathic fucktard who thinks the Marquise de Sade was a poseur, or probably has watched the Hills Have Eyes so many times, their already slim grip on reality has blurred.

The other problem I have, is that I was raised (loosely) Irish Roman Catholic - and one never, ever lays a hand on a woman. Chauvinistic as this sounds, on the physical level, women usually can't compete in hand-to-hand combat: there are exceptions to the rule, true, but overall, a woman is at a distinct disadvantage in a physical confrontation. It's just a fact, folks, and no amount of debate will change that. Granted, these were just verbal threats - even if Pegeen said, "...the blow of a loy, have taught me that there's a great gap between a gallous story and a dirty deed", still, there are limits, there's a point of no return even on a verbal level.

As to the complete morons in question, well, if you go around threatening women, you're coward, pure and simple. Unworthy of the mantle of masculinity you fancy you wear. If you're a bully well into adulthood, then it's time for some serious therapy, bucko.

Personally, I'd like an hour in a room with these assholes, and see how they feel about the phrase, 'Turnabout is fair play'. Maybe to find out if that one assbite is any damn good with his foam-flex bat, or to quote Bud White from L.A Confidential: "You're pretty tough with the ladies. Do you dance with the boys?"

And I don't want to hear some crap about 'violence is the first refuge of a coward', or any of that other schmaltz. For the most part, people will listen to reason: but there are those among us, the walking wounded, who are beyond the level of civilized discourse, who only understand one language well, who delight in the scent of fear that they monger, who are too weak or too feeble-minded to feel that twinge of empathy that separates us from the reptiles. In short, feral atavisms- reversions to type, who understand only the language of fear.

Pardon me if I went off in a bit of a rant there, but my ex-girlfriend left her husband of 18 years for me, because he was a drunken abusive wackjob, so this is a point of major contention for me. Bullies tend to make me see red.

In her own words:
"I have cancelled all speaking engagements.

"I am afraid to leave my yard.

"I will never feel the same. I will never be the same. "

Something like this leaves me white-knuckled. Testosterone in full throttle.

Now, I myself have actually spoken harsh words to other blogger's: I have called more than one male out onto the matt, I have been abusive on occasion - but to threaten a lady in such a manner...well, I've made myself sufficiently clear on that point.

So, where is the line drawn? I've been known to play moderator on the NGB, and have edited or deleted posts that were hateful or abusive (these are extreme cases). I myself, on the other hand, have been accused of being hateful and intolerant. As a rule, I tend to be more respectful towards women than others of my gender - but I maintain that I'll not say something online that I wouldn't say to the other blogger's' face - and that if I treat someone with respect, I expect to receive it in return. I'm a fairly friendly fellow.

An opinion, however, is another thing entire: and while other people are entitled to theirs, I feel entitled to call it foolish if I deem it so, in no unequivocal manner. On that point, there is no debate: unless I can be proven to be wrong.

The sad likelihood that this occurrence will force us all to walk upon eggshells: that general consensuses will collectively twist our arms to mince our words, and that PC pedantry will dilute the language to the extreme where we cannot call the shots the way we see them.

"All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family, and each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the others. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul." - Gandhi

Read More...

Summary only...

More M.C Hawking

This guy just cracks me up. The rapper M.C Hawking.

"Ken Leavitt-Lawrence, known as MC Hawking, is a nerdcore hip hop artist who parodies gangster rap and theoretical physicist Stephen J. Hawking. MC Hawking gained some popularity in the early 2000s, largely due to the availability of his music on the Internet. Each of his raps are synthesized by the now defunct commercial text-to-speech program WillowTalk. The songs were originally released in MP3 format, but due to the popularity of the website, MC Hawking got a record deal with Brash Music to release a so-called "greatest hits" album."

Some quotes:

• "I explode like a bomb. No one is spared. / My power is my mass times the speed of light squared." — from "E=MC Hawking"
• "They want to have their bullshit taught in public class. / Stephen Jay Gould should put his foot right up their ass." — from "Fuck the Creationists"
• "Look I ain't Thomas Dolby, science doesn't blind me. / Think you're smart? Form a line behind me." — from "What We Need More of is Science"
• "You ever drop an egg, and on the floor you see it break? / You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake. / But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true? / If you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new?" — from "Entropy"
• "Creationists always try to use the second law / to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw: / the second law is quite precise about where it applies, / only in a closed system must the entropy count rise. / The Earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun. / So fuck the damn creationists! Doomsday, get my gun." — from "Entropy"
• "I got a Ph.D in pain and a master's in disaster, / the mighty Stephen Hawking is a fucking Quake master." — from "QuakeMaster"

"Stephen Hawking has said that he is "flattered, as it's a modern day equivalent to Spitting Image". [1] On the inside cover of A Brief History of Rhyme, Leavitt-Lawrence thanks Stephen Hawking "for taking this joke in the spirit that it was intended." Among subjects of MC Hawking songs are various scientific topics, Hawking's professional relationships with MIT rivals, as well as the standard fare of gangsta rap, including street violence and drug use."

I think this is how we should roll from now on (hey, am I too old? Can I pull that off?)

Enjoy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Monkey to Man!

Who doesn't like Elvis Costello? Here's a better way to 'teach the controversy':

A long time ago, our point of view
Was broadcast by Mr. Bartholomew
And now the world is full of sorrow and pain
And it's time for us to speak up again

You're slack and sorry
Such an arrogant brood
The only purpose you serve is to bring us our food
We sit here staring at your pomp and pout
Outside the bars we use for keeping you out

You've taken everything that you wanted
Broke it up and plundered it and hunted
Ever since we said it
You went and took the credit
It's been headed this way since the world began
When a vicious creature took the jump from Monkey to Man

Monkey to Man

Every time man struggles and fails
He makes up some kind of fairytales
After all of the misery that he has caused
He denies he's descended from the dinosaurs

Points up to heaven with cathedral spires
All the time indulging in his base desires
Ever since we said it
He went and took the credit
It's been headed this way since the world began
When a vicious creature took the jump from Monkey to Man

Monkey to Man

Big and useless as he has become
With his crying statues and his flying bomb
Goes 'round acting like the chosen one
Excuse us if we treat him like our idiot cousin

He hangs up flowers and bells and rhymes
Hoping to hell someone's forgiven his crimes
Fills up the air with his pride and praise
He's a big disgrace to our beastly ways

In the fashionable nightclubs and finer precincts
Man uses words to dress up his vile instincts
Ever since we said it
He went and took the credit
It's been headed this way since the world began
When a vicious creature took the jump from Monkey to Man.

What's not to like? Between a bevy of bikini-clad beauties dancing, some good music, a distinct nod to evolution, and some guy running around in a gorilla suit.

Hey, so he left out the finer points. Who'd listen to a song about bacterial flagellum, anyways?

Relax, chill, smile, and groove. (Do the kids still use 'groove' these days?)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Uncarved Block of Ice - Fun With Thermodynamics

(Cross-posted at Godis4Suckers.net)

"Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up."

"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate."

"Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount." - MC Hawking, Entropy

When first I began blogging, I had nary a clue about thermodynamics, outside of the laymen's version (energy can't be destroyed, etc). And almost inevitably, that worn out, tired canard gets trotted out for the umpteenth millionth time, you know the one, 'evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!' (Herein referred to as 2LoT) Never mind that there's just as many web links that prove this incorrect. Even the panspermiatists agree.

I can attest that I have at least one gray hair that can be named 2LoT - the problem is that it's always viewed (by the creationists, wouldn't you know?) as strictly linear - that is, it's a straight line from point A to B. But, as the first link says, "In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production)."

Never mind that it applies to closed systems (which the earth most distinctly is not, and the universe? Jury's still out).

Theists typically place their deity outside the realm of falsifiability. That is, said critter is immortal, outside the Einsteinian laws of physics (i.e., beyond time and space, citation of Psalms 90:4), aforementioned beastie is immutable, perfect, ergo unchanging (which would make it impossible to interact with us 'imperfect' beings). Nor can we find an instance in nature where the creator is free of the laws of physics that bind the created. Not to mention that it would violate the 2LoT, would it not?

But wait! There's also the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics. Put simply, it's "as a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value." Therefore, said deity would have to be frozen, since there's no hint of entropy, right?

So, in order for there to be any kind of perfect deity, in the interests of symmetry and correlation with any of the laws of thermodynamics (note that the 3rd law stipulates that absolute zero cannot be reached, even though they've come within a billionths of a degree), said god would need to thaw itself out before it could ever, ever interact with said creation. And, since this god's entropy would be restored upon the exchange of heat for cold, it would be mutable, mortal, and imperfect, having been shorn of its superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose–Einstein condensation.

Got all that? Short version: take gawd out of the freezer, and thaw it out. Oh, whoops, that was the hamburger I made from the sacred cow.

Anyways, next time you hear that hoary old chestnut about 2LoT, do feel free to bop them with this one. It should send them all a-flutter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Profiles in Atheism - The Blanket of Hair

"Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know major tom's a junkie
Strung out in heavens high
Hitting an all-time low"

- David Bowie, Ashes to Ashes

"In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris" - Genesis 3:19.

The Buddhists have a legend about Ajita Kesakambali - to wit: "he wore a blanket of human hair (Kesakambali in Sanskrit means "with the hair blanket"), "which is described as being the most miserable garment. It was cold in cold weather, and hot in the hot, foul smelling and uncouth."

The Wiki entry also says, "He was probably a contemporary of Buddha and Mahavira. It has frequently been noted that the doctrines of the Lokayata school were considerably drawn from Ajita's teachings. Like those of Lokayatins, nothing survives of his teachings in script, except some scattered references made by his opponents for the sake of refutation. Thus, due to the nature of these references, the basic framework of Ajita's philosophy has to be derived by filtering out obscure legends associated with him."

It's an oddness, that the materialist philosophies seemed to die out, the documents gone, and the evidence has to be parsed in order to cull a fragmentary picture.

Perhaps not so odd.

From here:

"According to an early Buddhist source (see: Rhys-Davids.T.W: Dialogues of the Buddha, 1899), Ajita Kesakambali argued that: : There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds...A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning, ground men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not."

And from here:

"Once I visited Ajita Kesakambali, and asked him about the fruits of the homeless life. Ajita Kesakambali said: “Your majesty, there is nothing given, bestowed, offered in sacrifice, there is no fruit or result of good or bad deeds, there is no mother or father, there are no spontaneously arising beings, there are in the world no ascetics or Brahmins who have attained, who have perfectly practiced, who proclaim this world and the next having realized them by their own super-knowledge. This human being is composed of the four great elements, and when one dies the earth part reverts to the earth, the water part to water, the fire part to fire, the air part to air, and faculties pass away into space. . . Fools and wise, at the breaking-up of the body, are destroyed and perish, they do not exist after death."

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, is what sprang to mind on reading this (and guess what? That's not really in the bible - see above quote).

 For your viewing pleasure, David Bowie singing the song cited above.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Allegories Gone Wild - The Mathematical Madman

These days, one doesn't need to go too far afield to find anyone more thoroughly whacked out than Young Earthers - the world abounds with baroque meritocracies beyond telling, from UFO wackjobs to Icke conspirators.

And I've found one that really skims the icing off the cake: one Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko - whom to all appearances seems to be a brilliant mathematician - his Wiki entry lists him as "a full member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, as well as a doctor of physics and mathematics, a professor, and head of the Differential Geometry Department of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics in Moscow State University."

He's also apparently stark barking mad.

Fomenko is the foremost proponent of a theory called the New Chronology:

Brief summary

Fomenko claims

1. That the chronology universally taken for granted is simply wrong;
2. That this chronology was essentially invented in the 16th and 17th centuries;
3. That archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology;
4. That there is not a single document that can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century;
5. That Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy;
6. That Jesus Christ may have been born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD or even later;
7. That the Old Testament is probably a rendition of events that occurred in the Middle Ages.

Now, I dislike critiquing something I haven't read: on the other hand, I'm not wild about shelling out 35 dollaroes for something that sounds like lunacy. So I'll just pull an excerpt available on the web, and take a few swings at it, if that's all right with y'all.

(Do note the icon that states 'In Association with Amazon.com' - the book's being sold on Amazon, it's not a partnership.)

Summary:

History: Fiction or Science?

Has history been tampered with? Yes, it has! Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did! The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.

Yeah, let's just skip all the evolutionary data available in this day and age, shall we?

Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries. It's likely that nobody told you before, but there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.

Ummm...the Mesha stele? The Rosetta Stone? Cuneiform writing?  The Harappan steatite seals? The Palermo Stone? You'll see later, that this bozo has an explanation for all of this.

Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.

Still waiting.

You will point accusing finger to the gigantic pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!

Yeah, they just seem pretty old, due to the wear and tear, don't they?

The oldest original written document that can be reliably unambiguously dated belongs to the 11th century! All dirty and worn out originals have somehow disappeared in the Dark Ages, as illiterate but clever monks kept only brand new copies.
New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.

'Unambiguously dated?' Isn't all dating ambiguous to some degree? Note the distinctly Euro-centric slant of it all. New research? Whose?

Early in life, we learn about ancient history in school. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are like real-life fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon we learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes.

Condescension'll get you everywhere. High-flown caricature of a contrary appeal to wonder.

We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors. We are caught up in tales of cruel wars, merciless Roman legions, noble knights, crusades and contests. We are thrilled by perilous sea voyages and discoveries, passions and adventures. What an exciting journey it is!

I'm getting the distinct impression that he's read far too many Aesop's Fables and the Brothers Grimm.

As we grow up, our love of history grows stronger too. We watch megalomaniac breathtaking Hollywood productions, read historical fiction, buy glossy expensive books about mysteries, admire archaeological finds, go to museums, and travel to Egypt , Rome , Greece and China . Yes, now we understand it all so much better, the universal history of humanity, and the rise and fall of civilizations. The history of humanity began so very-very long ago. Per ternia ad astra!

Hmmm...sounds like a creationist. That last sentence translates: 'From the thickets to the stars'.

There is too much fantasy to be found in history. The ancient history of Antiquity and the Middle Ages is an enormous edifice of unspeakable perfection and beauty literally left hanging in the air. It simply has no proven and reliable scientific dated documentary foundation.

Perfection and beauty? Surely he's yanking our chains, is he not? A long history of genocide, oppression, and the baser instincts of mankind, more like. Borrowing Ellison's simile, it's more like individual roses at the top of myriad dung heaps.

The version of World history generally accepted today is based on presumptions. You might rightfully object that there are innumerable historical documents, manuscripts, ancient papyri, parchments, old and not so old books, buzzing with references to, from and about the past. There appears to be enough historical material to easily reconstruct completely the glorious past!

There's enough material, yes, but easily? Scholars are still hashing out the details. There's just so many contradictory accounts, that synchronization is a distant dream.

Yes, there are more than enough ‘documents’ to blind you forever; enough to lead you astray from the paths of sound reason and logic. Yes, there is enough material to generate a further dazzling Hollywood blockbusters, such as “Gladiator”, “Troy”, “Alexander” with the convincing acting of Russell Crow  or Brad Pitt; enough sizzling ideas for a further barnburners like “Da Vinci code”.

What a bunch of Hollyweird flicks has to do with actual historians is fuzzy at best: anyone with a lick of sense knows that artistic license is employed with any of the real facts.

Everyone wrongly presumes that the reconstruction of the past is simple. One takes an ancient chronicle, translates it into contemporary language, and that's it. History is reconstructed as new.

Everyone? Oh, I see: he's the prime source we should listen to, as all the scholars got it wrong and he's the final arbiter of truth and reason.

Ancient history is first of all, a written history based on the following sources: documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artifacts. When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great in years X, Y, Z have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources. Seemingly simple questions do not always have clear, unambiguous answers. When were these sources written? Where and by whom were they found? For each of those two questions, the answers are very complex and require in-depth research to reflect the true answers and historical events.

He's actually talking about historiography here, and glosses over the concept of critical historiography by incorporating it into his writing. He also deliberately misses protohistory and prehistory. This is known as graphocentricity, e.g., a distinct bias in favor of written materials.

It is further presumed that there are numerous carefully preserved ancient and medieval chronicles available, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses to their fantastic conquests, which are kept today in the National Library of Mongolia or Greece; in the Library of Congress or in the private collection of Microsoft.

Ummm...maybe the average layman thinks so, but probably not. More often, someone told them as much. And there's enough written by contemporaries, eyewitnesses, and later writers, that inductive logic (plus dating of said documents) verifies it. Microsoft has a private collection?

Only fairly recent sources of information are available, having been written hundreds or even thousands of years after the events. In most cases they have been written in the XVI-XVIII centuries, or even later. As a rule, these sources suffered considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing. At the same time, innumerable originals of ancient documents under pretext of heresy were destroyed in Europe.

These are bold statements, especially from someone whose credentials are in unrelated fields.

Of course, some real events were the source of most written documents, even those that were later falsified and manipulated.

Do I catch a whiff of 'it's all a vast conspiracy' here, folks?

However, the same real event could have been described in chronicles by authors writing in different languages and having contradictory points of view. There are many cases where such are plainly unrecognizable as the same event.

'Could have been'? And if something is plainly unrecognizable as the same event, what would lead you to believe it was the same event? Any comparisons? Nope. Probably there's some in the book, but again, I'm not shelling out cash for a pipe dream as wild as this.

The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries. The exact same name could take on an entirely different meaning in different historical epochs. Geographical locations were clearly defined on maps, only with the advent of printing. This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes in the fields of the military, navigation, education and governance, etc. Before the invention of printed maps, each original map was a unique work of art, both non-exact and contradictory.

Still no citations. What a tease.

Historians from Oxford say: «... everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C. Do you really doubt it?» Yes, we really do. For us, this statement is only a point of view that is dominant today. But it is only one of many possible points of view until the fact is proven.

In which case, I'll defer to a consensus of scholars in their given expertise. Who is this 'we' crap? Is he royalty, or did he acquire a tapeworm. Oh wait: we're confidants now.

In turn, we will also ask these historians some simple questions: where did you get your information? from a textbook? That’s not good enough. Who was the first to say that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.? What book, document and/or manuscript can you quote as a primary source? Who is the author of this source? When was this primary source written down, if you please?

Gee, I don't know: maybe Caesar's own dated writings? Cicero's? Coins, temples, you know, all the evidence that points in that direction? This is the old poisoning the well, in order to slant the bias towards his work.

We do not accept «the textbook says so» type of answer as proof. As soon as you dig for proof slightly deeper than the school textbook, the adamant grounds for the totally and utterly dominant point of view suddenly evaporate. The whole world community of professional historians will not be able to come with up irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar ever existed, be it on paper, papyri, parchment or stone. Same story for all great names of Antiquity. The proof is unavailable!

Irrefutably? Yeesh, talk about ipse dixit.

Cambridge historians say: “here is the ancient chronicle written in the twelfth century A.D., which clearly says, 'Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C. '.”  But what proves that this chronicle was written in the twelfth century and not in the seventeenth century? Is your written source scientifically dated? The fact that bronze (or plastic panel made in the twenty-first century with the lettering: “Temple of Jupiter built in I century B.C. by the personal command of the Great Magnificent Caesar the Emperor of Rome” is hanging on the ancient looking edifice is not irrefutable proof of when, why, or what it was built for, even if the building is located in Rome, Italy.

That's a non sequitor.

Indeed, the dating of the chronicle from the twelfth century has to be proven. That is where the buck stops. The historians are unable to prove the date of the writing of their «old» written sources or produce independent datings of any ancient artifacts. For the last 300 years they have been successfully selling to the public ancient looking coins minted in recent day, with a tails inscription of “coined in 2000 B.C.” and heads inscribed with the portrait of Jesus Christ.

Hold the bus: What? First off, 2000 BCE was WAY before the alleged birth. Secondly these coins were minted in Constantine's time, and the dates actually agree with his estimations. More on this a little farther on.

Better than that - most of the rare sources that survived to our day and can be reliably dated back to the X-XIV centuries do not show the polished textbook picture of classical history. They show a picture utterly different. Therefore such witnesses and sources are not admissible to the orderly court of history! Learned historians say that such sources are primitive and full of errors, wrong names and locations, chronologically impossible situations, etc .. They claim these sources are unfortunate concoctions of half illiterate monks, hermits and travellers - therefore they cannot be accepted to the sacred temple of universal classical history.

'Orderly court of history'? Is this guy even living on the same planet I am?

[...]
in an Egyptian dig of a pharaoh burial site attributed to 16th 19th dynasty, (1500 years B C - this is allegedly known for a fact!) - an archaeologist finds a pot from Greece ; lets call it Article A , attributed to the Mycenae culture. It is inferred that they are from the same age: (1500 years B C ). In another dig in Greece, definitely attributed to the Mycenae culture, another archaeologist finds a "peculiar" button; lets call it: Article B, next to a similar pot; and it is inferred that they are from the same age (1500 B C ) as: (Age of Article A = age of Article B). OK. In further digs in Germany, archaeologists find other objects next to similar "peculiar" buttons, so it is also inferred that all these objects: Articles C, D,...N, found in the German dig have the same age: (1500 years B.C). Logical?  Seems so.

Seems rational? Now watch this:

But, one day the archaeologists in Sweden find additional "peculiar" buttons in a dig of the fairly recent dolmen burial of King Bjorn (born 953 A D), irrefutably dated by the 10th century A D .

Therefore, "peculiar" button “proves” that King Bjorn lived 2500 years ago and burial dolmen proves that he was buried 1500 years later? Not so logical anymore. Archaeologists call such a case a "mystery" – and .. sweep it under the carpet. Forget about logic!

This nimbulb is blathering about the King's Grave: an archeological gravesite (dated 1000 BCE) in Norway that was so thoroughly contaminated (and built on a Stone Age settlement) that nobody knows just exactly what it used to look like. King Bjorn has been dated to have existed in the first half of the 9th century (and ambiguously at that, so there goes the irrefutably claim), and besides which, what button is he talking about? If I'm buried with my favorite samurai sword, that dates back to the mid-sixteenth century, is some nutcase going to dig me up and spout a bunch of lunacy about how 'history lied'? Articles and artifacts can travel.

Button, button, who's got the button?

Archaeological dating therefore is by definition completely and inevitably subjective.

Which fallacy is that? Oh yeah...the unrepresentative example.

Radio-carbon method:
This much touted method produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude of plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe! Initial calibration of this method was made basis artefacts of ancient Egypt dated by historians.

Ummm...not so. Radio-carbon dating only works on organic materials. This might apply to something written on paper, but what about all those examples I provided earlier? Steles, stones, etc.? He obviously has a bug up his ass about C14 dating, but what is his position on Potassium-Argon dating? 

At present the c14 dating procedure runs as follows: archaeologist sends an artefact to a radiocarbon dating laboratory with his idea of the age of the object. Laboratory complies and makes required radio dating, confirming the date suggested by archaeologist. Everybody’s happy: lab makes money by making an expensive test, archaeologist by reaping the laurels for his earth shattering discovery. The in-built low precision of this method allows cooking scientifically looking results desired by the customer archaeologist. General public doesn’t realize that it was duped again. In general the archaeological artefacts are submitted to carbon 14 laboratories not to find the true age of the artefact, but to rubberstamp age suggested by the historians.

Aye caramba! It's the 'nasty ole scientists are in on it!' conspiracy theory again! The 'customer archeologist'? Where? At 'Artifacts R Us'? Does this retard even know what radio-carbon dating is? How it's measured? It's measured by an established formula, not by some guesswork.

Dendrochronological method:
This method is unusable for dating reliably events in Europe older than 800 years. Samples from North America are datable up to 5000 years, but are irrelevant for dating ancient of events in Europe, Africa or Asia.
All methods of dating used today are not independent from the classical Scaliger chronology.   Moreover all these "fine" methods were developed and calibrated on the basis of the classical chronology. Circulus vitiosus. Very Vicious circle!

[Note: I linked to Scaliger, as I'd never heard of this 15th century historian before]. Gee whiz, was Thucydides make believe too? Apparently so. He's obviously never heard of this:
"Over the past hundred years or so, tree ring sequences have been built all over the world, with the longest to date consisting of a 10,000 year sequence in central Europe completed on oak trees by the Hohenheim Laboratory."

The strange thing is that all proofs relative to all historically important names and events of ancient history have first appeared in sources such as, documents, books and manuscripts that can be reliably dated only as late as the XVI-XVIII centuries. These books and manuscripts are full of references to, from and about the older books, documents and manuscripts, which have all mysteriously disappeared! There is not a single reliably dated original ancient contemporary source. Sic! What a mystery/thriller, indeed. Even a flatfoot policeman, aspiring to become detective by correspondence, will smell something fishy here. Wouldn't you?

I do. It's your analysis. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? All those Egyptian obelisks with writing on them? Schliemann at his Troy? Oh, sorry, I forgot: there's that big 'conspiracy' to create a false history. My bad.

Why is this so?
The «sources» are part of classical chronology. Most Greek, Roman, medieval chronicles, annals and memoirs were massively produced in XVI-XVIII centuries. In fact, for the last 300 years, the whole class of historians created, researched, perfected and polished a world of phantom universal history and classical civilization artfully constructed by their predecessors in the course of XVI-XVIII centuries at the command of powers of that time. They have literally polished the real world history into oblivion!   The ancient history you and I were taught in school is not truth in the final instance; it is nothing but the currently dominant and indoctrinated version of history.

A carefully cultivated and polished conspiracy over the ages. (rolls his eyes) Yeah, let's skip over Egypt, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the Chinese. We wouldn't want actual facts to get in the way, would we?

This version is based on a «chronological hypothesis», formulated for first time by the chronologists and historians Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysus Petavius (1583-1652). Their chronology is about as irrefutable as the quadrature of the circle of which Joseph Scaliger was an anecdotic, but ferocious protagonist.

Ummm...no, Scaliger was famous for "showing that ancient history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart; and that the historical narratives and fragments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be critically compared." Petavius was a theologian and philologist, but not an historian.

Genuflect and admire the Almagest, which lies as the foundation to the entire edifice of contemporary chronology! It is supposed to have been written in the II century AD by Ptolemy, the founding father of astronomy. This presumably antediluvian tractate catalogues 1028 observable stars with a precision of 10'-15' (arc minutes) of longitude. Now, the rotation of the Earth makes the night sky make a turn of 1 arc degree every four minutes. One arc degree consists of 60 arc minutes, which means that the sky rotation speed equals 15' (arc minutes) per one minute of time. Ptolemy's precise measurements were too precise to have been performed with the existing instruments of that time. either a sundial, a clepsydra, or an hourglass. Could he have used his Grandfather's Swiss chronometer that had a minute hand? This seems most improbable considering that minute hands are a novelty introduced to clocks as recently as 1550 AD.

We don't even use the Ptolemaic system: remember, it was geocentric? For that matter, the Mayans didn't have any of these instruments, and they did a bit of all right for themselves. So did the Chinese. Oh, wait, keep forgetting: that stuff was planted, wasn't it?

Another solid pillar of universal history is the Bronze Age, that has supposedly taken place 3-5 thousands of years ago. Now, to make bronze you need 90% copper and 10% tin. Simple. Yes, but the technology for tin extraction dates back as late as 14th century A.D. The Scaliger chronologists did not bother to consult a chemist. They have been driven by altogether different considerations, neither caring much for tin, nor indeed for science itself! As a result, 'ancient' Greek heroes (like Brad Pitt in «Troy») happily hack at each other with bronze swords that need tin for their manufacture, but which has not been discovered as yet!

If you actually take the time to go look up the Bronze Age, you'll find that it's anything but 'universal': there are widely divergent eras in different societies, not to mention that in sub-Saharan Africa, some of them actually skipped the Neolithic straight to the Iron Age. Besides which, anyone with half a brain doesn't cull their historical facts from films. When was the last time someone hollered out, "Hey, those are IRON AGE swords! I call anachronism!" in the movie theater?

Explore, and, step by step, you will find sufficient proof to reach the inevitable conclusion that the classical Scaliger-Petavius chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false. After reading this book you will certainly have a fresh and very suspicious outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.

 And yes, this guy's a YOUNG Young Earther, all right. In the video provided, he claims that jay-sus was born in 1053 CE, and crucified in 1086. Note he doesn't provide his theory of how we all came to be. The floor is open to speculation.

Final analysis? In this case, too much math mulches the mind.

"There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line." - Oscar Levant.

Read More...

Summary only...

You Can't Marry A Snapping Turtle!

Time for one of my favorite all-time masters of rant - Lewis Black. From his Red White and Screwed HBO special. I have made an effort to transcribe the routine under the fold, in case some of you are still on the antiquated dial-up.

Enjoy.

>

Now, there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and that difference is, the New Testament god is really kind of a great guy. He is, especially when you compare him, to the Old Testament god, who is a prick. I don't know what happened to god, over time, if he matured, or went to an anger management class. Or maybe just the birth of his son calmed him down. But before he had the kid, holy fuck, he was outta control! All you gotta do is read the Old Testament, it's really unbelievable. Look at Abraham, the first man to have faith in one god, and what does god do? "Hey, Abraham! Come here! Come here! Bring your kid! Let's barbecue him, hahaha!" Moses spends his life with them, crosses the desert with them, devotes 40 years to his people, to get them outta Egypt across the desert to the Promised Land, and god goes, "Hey, Mo! You're not getting in! Kiss my ass, hahaha!" There's a guy you wanna work for. And then, oh ho, and then there's the book of Job. For those of you who are depressed, take a read of that sometime. Because I don't care how bad your day is, you don't even stack up. Job, was the most upright man with the most faith of any man on the planet EVER! And what did god do? He sat on his head, and said "I'm going to take a shit-shit-shit! Open your mouth, here comes some more shit!" The reason the Old Testament god, is a prick, is because the Old Testament is designed, as a book, to get the Jews to straighten up and fuckin' fly right. Because they were outta control. They were ten hairs away from being baboons. And that's the point, when I do that in the South, you can hear the veritable fucking pin drop. Figure it out, okay? You watch Jerry Springer. That's what we're like NOW, imagine what they were like THEN. They needed rules, they needed to know that marriage needs to take place between a man and a woman. Because they were wandering into camp with camels, going "I'm in LOVE!" "I don't care WHAT you are, you can't marry a snapping turtle, asshole!" But it's not good enough for our president, that it's written in the bible. He felt it was just imperative that he put it in the constitution. And so did many states. Because apparently, we heterosexuals have reached a point we're so fucked up, that we better write it down, in case we forget, who we're supposed to marry. It's unbelievable! It's in the book already! What, do you need to print it, are you crazy?!? It's...huh...huh..(shakes his head) . But in the midst of all our problems, that was the most important thing. We have no energy policy, you know? None whatsoever. We still don't have a good one, it's ridiculous. And if you ask, we're not going to have solar energy in my lifetime, you know? A few people have it, but it's something we should all have, it's ridiculous. I'll take no flying cars, but solar energy? And if you ask your congressman why, he'll say, "'Cause it's hard. It's really, really hard. Makes me wanna go poopy." You wanna know why we don't have solar energy? Because the sun goes away each day, and it doesn't tell us where it's going. I can guarantee you this, we could have it if we wanted to, we can have anything we want.

Read More...

Summary only...

Proof-Reading The 'Prophecies'

It’s that time, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, theists and atheists, for my Sunday sermon. This is a long one folks: no napping, or your knuckles’ll be rapped by a ruler! Communion will be administered via a Nabisco cracker and some sparkling Apple cider (hey, it IS the 21st century, after all!).

This laughable instance is brought to you by these folks:

Let us begin paring away the platitudes, and examining the misconceptions:

The "seed of a woman": Genesis 3:15.... Galatians 4:4.
Jesus was born of Virgin Mary without any man involved in His conception (Is.7:14, Mat.1:23, Lk.1:27).
- Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
- Gal.4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law. (Luk.2:7; Rev.12:5)

Firstly, the Genesis passage is NOT a prophecy. The Gal/Luke/Rev. was coverage, due to the ongoing rumor that JC was a bastard, & had a centurion father.

Descendent of Abraham: Genesis 12:3, 18:18.... Acts 3:25, Matthew 1:1.
- Gen. 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. (Gen. 12:3)
- Act. 3:25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, "Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed." (Mt.1:1; Lk.3:34)

The Genesis passage, again taken out of context. God is promising Abraham that his nation will be mighty (never really happened, historically). Then segues off to destroying Sodom. All Acts and Matthew (who was the LAST person anyone should listen to, if he existed) do is promise the followers that they will overcome: what prophet does otherwise? This is one of those retrofits Christians love.

3- Descendent of Isaac: Gen.17:19, Luc.3:34.
- Gen.17:19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
-Mt.1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. (Lk.3:34)

Covenant is for the nation only. Paring it down to fit the Messiah is simple rubbish. Note also that eight years later, after said promise is made, Abram's commanded to sacrifice his son. Can you say bi-polar, boys and girls?

4- Descendent of Jacob: Numbers 24:17... Luke 3:34, Matt.1:2.
- Num.24:17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.
- Luke 3:34 The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor. (Mt.1:2)

This is basically a promise that the surrounding nations will be subjugated to Israel. Nothing more.

5- From the Tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10, Luke 3:33.
- Genesis 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.
- Luke 3:33 The son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah. (Mt.1:2-3)

Sure wish these people would do these passages in order. Don’t know if this is intentional: lazy people will just take one’s word for it. Besides, this is talking about JUDAH, which is not Israel. Israel and Judah were brothers, not nations, up till this. They established separate nations.

6- Heir of the Throne of David: Isaiah 9:7.... Luke 1:32-33.
- Isaiah.9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah.11:1-5; 2Sam.7:13)
- Luk.1:32-33: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." (Mt.1:1, 1:6)

Ahem. Don’t need to look this up. Isaiah (who had a number of prophecies that never came true, as in ALL) was in no way predicting Jesus’ coming. Everything in Isaiah was based on current events. Look it up.

Birth and Childhood:

7- Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2.... Matthew 2:1.... Luke 2:4-7.
- Micah.5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from ancient times.
- Mt.2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem. (Lk.2:4-7)

Micah 5:1 reads, “Now gather thyself in troops, o daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon thy cheek”, and the reader is invited to read the ENTIRE BLOODY CHAPTER! Talks about the Assyrians, Micah 4 talks about the captivity (Egyptian? Never happened. Maybe Babylonian?).

8- To be born of a Virgin: Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18.... Luke 1:26-35.
- Isaiah.7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
- Mt.1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: his mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. (Lk.1:26-35)

Utter and complete crap. No one in the NT called Jesus Immanuel, which is a proper name. Also, it was an imminent prophecy, fulfilled in Isaiah 8. The ‘virgin’ in question was actually a prophetess. Look it up.

9- Time of his birth: Daniel 9:25.... Luke 2:1:
- Dan.9:25 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven "sevens" and sixty two "sevens." It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
- Lk 2:1-2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria.) (Lk 2:3-7)
- Mat.2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem

Simple, convenient retrofitting. Let’s call the ‘weeks’ anything else but: it doesn’t fit the facts properly.

10- Slaughter of the Innocent children: Jeremiah 31:15.... Matthew 2:16-18.
- Jeremiah.31:15 This is what the Lord says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
- Mt.2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. (Mt 2:16-1 )

Utter folderol. Rachel’s children were returned to her. No proof exists for the infanticide.

11- Flight to Egypt: Hosea 11:1.... Matthew 2:14-15.
- Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son
- Mt.2:14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt. (Mt 2:15)

Hosea passage is distinctly talking about Ephraim. Bullocks.

12- He shall be called a Nazarene: Judges 13:5.... Matthew 2:23.
- Judges 13:5 for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God
- Mt.2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene

Completely wrong. Nazarite and Nazarene are completely different animals (let’s skip the fact that Nazareth never existed until the 4th century!) Judges is a direct reference to SAMSON!

Passion:
13- Triumphal entry in Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9.... John 12:13-14.
- Zec.9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Isa.62:11)
- Jn.12:13-14 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!" Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written. (Mt.21:1-11; Jn.12:12, Mk.11:7-9.)

Zechariah is completely about Israel’s dominion over neighboring states. Inapplicable. Matthew screws up again! Matthew also has JC riding in on two different animals simultaneously, in a hilarious effort to retrofit to Zechariah. The Messiah as a rodeo clown!

14- Entry through the "Golden Gate", that shall be shut forever after his entrance: Ezekiel 44:1-2.... Mark 11:7-8.
On Palm Sunday Jesus entered Jerusalem through the Golden Gate. When you go to Jerusalem look at the Golden Gate, it is shut with stone and cement, and with a Muslim cemetery in its front, through which a Jewish Messiah will never pass.
- Ez.44:1-2 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD , the God of Israel, has entered through it.
- Mk.11:7-8 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields.

Wow. Tough read Ezekiel 44:1-2 - seeing as it’s sandwiched between the purification of the temple and the portioning of the land, it is simply an oblique way of saying, “Jews only”. Had to actually look it up - the Internet sites bury this into their folderol of prophecy.

15- Betrayed by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver: Zechariah 11:12, Psalm 41:9... Mark 14:10, Matthew 26:14-15.
- Ps.41:9 Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.
- Mk.14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. (Mt.26:14-16; Mk.14:43-45)
- Zec.11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. (Zec.11:13)
- Mt.26:15 And asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. (Mt 27:3-10)

Matthew/Mark were retrofitting (or retrofitted) for the Zech passages. It’s obvious, when one reads the ENTIRE chapter, this is no prophecy.
It’s pretty much ranting and raving about workman’s ethics.
Psalms - David is talking about Saul (Ps.41:9), obviously.

16- Money to be returned for a potter's field: Zechariah 11:13.... Matthew 27:6-7.
- Zec.11: 13 And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"- the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.
- Mt.27:6-7 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. (Mt.27:3-5,8-10)

See above. He paid the potter, and fired some people

17- Judas's position to be taken by another: Psalm 109:7-8.... Acts 1:18-20.
- Ps.109:7-8 When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership
- Act.1:18-20 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For, " said Peter, "It is written in the book of Psalms, "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "'May another take his place of leadership.'" (Ac 1:16-17)

Utter crap. Ps. 109 is pretty much exhortation, “fix my enemies for me”. Note 109-9 says “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” Judas wasn’t married.

18- Accused by false witnesses: Psalms .27:12, 35:11.... Mt 26:60-61, Mk.14:57.
- Ps.27:12 Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, breathing out violence. (Ps.35:11)
- Mt.26:60-61 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two men came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'"

PS. 27:10 -“When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.”

Ahem. Mary never abandoned JC: she was there at his alleged crucifixion. What ever happened to Joseph?

19- Silent to accusations: Isaiah 53:7.... Matthew 26:62-63, Mark.15:4-5.
- Isa.53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Ps.38: 13-14)
- Mt 26:62-63 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!" (Mt 27:12-14, Mk.15:4-5)

The only point I can make w/Isa.53:7 is that it is exclusively in the past tense.

Isaiah 50:1 - “Thus saith the Lord, where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” This is entirely about Israel.

21- Hated without reason: Psalms 69:4, 35:19, 109:3-5.... John.15:24-25.
- Ps 69:4 Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal. (Ps.35:19, 109:3-5)
- Jn.15:23-25 He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: "They hated me without reason."

Ps: 69:35 - For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession.” Judah vanished long ago, & has never come back

22- Soldiers divided his garments and gambled for his clothing: Psalm 22:18... Matt.27:35 (2 Prophecies)
- Ps 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
- Mt.27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots (Mk.15:24).

The Psalms are obviously a long lament of David, and are NOT prophecies. And the Romans only did this for JC? Also, it is to be noted, that the Romans provided the garment. If they were going to let someone’s sweat and blood be all over it, why would they want it? It was a freebie: why gamble over it?

23- Crucified, "pierced through hands and feet": Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16.... Matthew 27:35, John 20:27.
- Ps.22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (Zec.12:10)
- Mt.27:35 And they crucified him.
- Jn. 20:25-26 Now Thomas (called Didymus)... he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." (Jn.19:37, 20:27)

Zechariah - see above comment. Ps: 22:16 - From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html - “The King James Version and modern fundamentalist versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and the NKJV, translate Psalm 22:16 thus:
Psalm 22:16 KJV/NIV/NKJV For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Surely, the believer will assert, this is one certain example of a prophecy fulfilled: "they pierced" can only refer to the puncturing of Jesus' flesh by the nails used in the crucifixion. It is then added that this translation is supported by the various ancient versions of the Bible. The Latin translation, the Vulgate, for instance, uses the word foderunt, which is the third person plural perfect verb for fodio, which means "to prick", "to sting", "to jab", "to dig" or "to prod". Thus foderunt could be reasonably translated as "they pierced" or "they have pierced". Similarly the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, the word used is oruxan (??????) which supposedly means "to bore through".
"The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) however, has a different word here. In order to see the picture clearly, I will provide the Hebrew as well the transliteration and meaning below.
Hebrew Alphabets yod resh aleph kaf
Transliteration Y R (no sound) K
Pronunciation Kaari
"Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left and in its original Biblical form is purely consonantal-the vowel points were added by later scribes (probably around 700 CE). Thus for subsequent discussion we will concentrate only on the consonantal text. The word shown above actually consists of two words, the first letter (on the right) kaf, is a preposition (called an inseparable preposition because it is always attached to a noun), which means, in this case, "like" (as in similar to). The next three letters, aleph-resh-yod, form the noun ari which means "lion". The word is pronounced as kaari and is translated as "like (a) lion". Thus the words "they pierced" are not found in the MT. In the Jewish translation of the Tanakh this is what we find:
Psalm 22:17 JPS For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have enclosed me; like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.”
EOWQ"

24- Crucified with malefactors: Isaiah 53:12.... Mark 15:27-28.
- Isa.53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
- Mt 27:38 Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. (Mk 15:27-28; Lk 23:33)

See above on Isa:53

25- Agonized in Thirst: Psalm 22:15.... John 19:28.
- Ps.22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
- Jn.19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

See above comment on Psalms.

26- Given gall and vinegar: Psalm 69:21.... Matthew 27:34, 48, John 19:19.
- Ps.69:21 They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.
- Mat.27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink (Jn.19:29, Mat.27:4

See above comment on Psalms.

27- No bones broken: Psalm 34:20.... John 19:32-36.
- Ps 34:20 He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (Ex 12:46)
- Jn 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Utter crap. Human foot contains hundreds of bones - how do tendons and cartilage support a full-grown man’s weight? See above website.

28- His side pierced: Zechariah 12:10.... John 19:34.
- Zec.12:10 They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
- Jn 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

See above comments on Zechariah

29- Deserted by God: Psalm 22:1.... Matthew 27:46.
- Ps.22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
- Mat.27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

See above on Psalms

30- Vicarious Sacrifice: Isaiah 53:4-5, 6, 12.... Matthew 8:16-17, Romans 4:25, 5:6-8, 1 Corinthians 15:3.
- Isa.53:4-5 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Is. 53:6, 12)
- Mt.8:16-17 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases." (Ro 4:25, 5:6-8, 1Cor 15:3)

Can’t anyone see Isaiah 53 is past tense?

31- Buried with the rich: Isaiah 53:9, Matthew 27:57-60.
- Isa.53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
- Mt.27:57-60 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away

See above. See also http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/burial.html

32- Deserted by his followers: Zechariah 13:7.... Mark 14:27.
- Zec.13:7 smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
- Mk.14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

Again, Zechariah firing his workers!

33- Time of his death: Daniel 9:25.... Luke 2:1, Matthew 2:1:
- Doing the proper computations, the Messiah was supposed to die on April 3, of the year 33 AC (Open Bible page.833)

Real interesting, how nobody seems to understand the concept of weeks when interpreting this.

34- Resurrection of Jesus: Hosea 6:2, Psalms 16:10, 49:15..... Luke 24:6-7, Mark.16:6-7.
- Hosea.6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
- Lk.24:6-7 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

Really, people should just read the whole damn chapter, not cook up theories based on singular passages. And why is it that none of these people understand the difference between him and us?

35- Other dead raised with Him: Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:7-10... Matthew 27:52-53.
- Isa.26: 19 Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
- Ez.37:7-10 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
- Mat.27: 52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Isaiah: 26: 19 Being as Isaiah 23 and 25 are talking about Tyre and Moab, respectively, this is a long flowing speech designed to incite loyalty, nationality, and love. It does read like a prophecy. Frighteningly so.
The Ez: 37 chapter is in no way a prophecy: Firstly, it reads like a direct rip-off of the Greek myth of Jason and the teeth of Cadmus. Secondly, if one reads the ENTIRE chapter, it is about the reunion of Judah and Israel, and here are some other select bits and parts to refute this reading: Ez.37:19, “Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and the shall be one in mine hand.”
Ez.37:24 - “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall….,etc”

However, Matthew is the ONLY one among the four to even speak of this, (raising of the saints) and note that Paul makes no mention of it whatsoever.

36- Ascension to Heaven: Psalms 68:18, 24:3...Lk 24:50-51, Acts 1:11, Mk.16:19.
- Ps.68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
- Ps.24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
- Lk 24:50-51 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven
- Act.1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

37- Christ at the Right hand of the Father: Psalm 110:1... Hebrews 1:2,3.
- Ps.110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
- Hebrews.1: 2,3 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

See commentary above on Psalms.

Ministry:

38- The way prepared by John the Baptist: Isaiah 40:3,5.... John 1:23, Luke 3:3-6.
- Isa.40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
- Jn.1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah

Isa.40:3 is simply a selective reading. 39:1, “at that time Merodachbaldan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters to Hezekiah….”
Isa.40-42 is a long, mellifluous song that results in Isa.43, where God gives Israel the following: Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba (which never happened).

Cries of 'Foul', 'Out of context' and the like will be rewarded with sitting in a corner facing away from the class, while wearing a dunce cap and being subjected to continuous jeering by the rest of the class. Comprende?

Questions?

Discuss among yourselves.

Read More...

Summary only...

Are These People COMPLETELY Clueless?

(Cross-posted at God is for Suckers)

Thanks to St. Gasoline, my blood pressure has risen considerably.

These brain-dead assholes use every...single...trick in the book. All of which are just that - smoke 'n mirrors.

It begins with the usual crapola: the claim that Darwin was concerned with the origin of life (quick note - the title of the book was the Origin of Species, along with the Descent of Man - and again the abiogenesis=evolution meme is brought into play).

So it blatters on about molecules organizing through...three guesses, yep, you got it - RANDOM CHANCE! Interspersed with pictures of cute kids and the occasional baby seal (go for the cutesy angle), somehow this video drags in the atheistic angle - "Hey, since we're all just primordial batter, that's it! You die, you're gone!" Little subliminal hints - a clock floats by a floating head on a colored pedestal. "Some people think that evolution replaces God."

"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." - Dawkins

More crap - "Scientists refer to the theory of evolution as fact, even though in science, theories can never be proven."

Last time I dropped something, it fell. It'll fall over and over again. Black holes bend light, due to their gravity wells. All that's pretty good, for just a theory. Likewise, a mushroom cloud speaks volumes for the theory of relativity.

Obviously, these dimwits don't have a clue. Quotes Hawking, that "even a single repeatable observation can destroy even the most grandiose theory."

He (Hawking) is also on record as saying, "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."

It blathers on about accidents a whole lot in this video. Why can't scientists create life from 'dead matter', you know the whole routine.

It runs the usual crap about fruit flies being bombarded by radiation. "Even though hundreds of mutations occurred, no new species were created."

Dipstick obviously doesn't understand what the term 'species' means at all, a demand for some bizarre chimera.

Also, it claims that 'scientists' are grudgingly 'admitting' there had to be some creative force behind the Big Bang, that the universe isn't eternal (no, but energy most likely is). Of course, there's considerable evidence that it's actually a Big Bounce, and that the universe was contracting prior to it.

There's a lot of dishonest quote mining in this...'scientific' video. It quotes Jerry Coyne as saying "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view...its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Strangely enough, the Wiki entry quotes Coyne as saying this :
"Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions. [1]

"Coyne argues that Darwin's evidence "destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged".

"Coyne goes on to make the theological argument that "A creator, especially an intelligent one, would not bestow useless tooth buds, wings, or eyes on large numbers of species."

"He also criticizes Icons of Evolution:

"Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. [2]"

Of course it vomits up that stale staple of creationism - the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "Everything tends towards disintegration and disorder" - Umm, this idiot might want to look up the zeroth and 3rd law.

And of course, another re-tread refrain of the 'transitional fossil' nonsense. It mentions the 'aquatic animals to land animals' as if there's no such fossil (umm...hello? Whales?).

It misquotes Gould (oh, whadda surprise!): "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

What were the actual quotes?
"Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution ... but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim." - Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (1983)

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

It goes over the Cambrian Explosion. Then it quotes Hugh Ross as per the Goldilocks effect.

It even quotes Isaac Asimov - known evolutionist and atheist. Followed by Michael Behe (he of the debunked irreducible complexity and mousetrap fame).

It devolves rapidly into the Watchmaker theory. And all the pictures of cute little kids.

I keep hearing from people that religion is supposed to make people better somehow. But I just ain't seeing it.

For folks what claim the higher moral ground, they sure do seem to enjoy wallowing in the mud on the valley floor.

For your viewing pleasure, the Commander-in-Thief teaching creationism in class - and the consequences: >

Read More...

Summary only...

More Sensitive Sallies in La-La Land

Or, to quote Peter Griffith, 'Ya know what really grinds my gears?'

If I've not mentioned it, I'm a huge fan of Heroes, the TV show. You name it, it's got it: continuity, plot and character development, excellent writing, sharp dialogue - the whole kit 'n kaboodle. Plus, none of the cast has hopped into ridiculous leotards a la that ridiculous film Daredevil.

It hasn't been on for a few weeks (who on EARTH would watch two hours of 'Deal or No Deal'?), so I hopped on over to my favorite all around look-up Answers.com, poking around, hoping for a hint as to when it'll resume.

I came across this little bit of idiocy:

"Emerson lawsuit

"On October 2, 2006, Emerson Electric Company, an appliance market competitor of NBC's owner General Electric, filed suit in federal court against NBC. The suit was in regards to a scene that appeared in "Genesis," the pilot episode, which depicts Claire Bennet reaching into an active garbage disposal unit—labeled "In-Sink-Erator"—to retrieve a ring, and severely injuring her hand in the process. Emerson claims the scene "casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product" by suggesting serious injuries will result "in the event consumers were to accidentally insert their hand into one."

"Emerson is asking for a ruling barring future broadcasts of the pilot, which was previously available on NBC's Web site and has already aired on NBC Universal-owned cable networks USA Network and The Sci Fi Channel. It also seeks to block NBC from using any Emerson trademarks in the future.^[21]

"The episode in question was briefly unavailable in the iTunes Store, but an edited version was shortly made available for download."

Oh, you have got to be effin' KIDDING me. I didn't even NOTICE the brand name of the garbage disposal. 'Suggesting serious injuries'? 'Tarnishing the product'? How many disposals does anyone know of that WON'T rip your hand up if you're stupid enough to stick it in there while it's RUNNING? Are they coming out with one soon? Is the company's sales so far down the crapper, that they've got to take one isolated example to court?

File this one under 'mental midgetry'.

Anyways, it's a great show. There's a great deal of discussion about evolution impacting the characters' lives (though how evo-devo can generate individuals who can walk through walls, or fly, is anyone's guess: I know, I know, it's fantasy, but it's a helluva lotta fun, you ask me). It does tend to discuss destiny and fate in the narratives a little overmuch, but it's a good way to kill an hour.

And that's my mini-rant for the day.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Little Birdie Told Me...

Lately I've been watching an AdultSwim series entitled 'Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law.'

For those of you who grew up watching cartoons, it's pretty funny. A brief summary is - Harvey's a former superhero cum attorney, who defends various other 60's Hanna Barbera cartoon characters in lawsuits, civil litigations, etc. He defended Fred Flintstone (organized mob boss), Shaggy and Scooby-Doo (DUI), and several other notables.

The following is from two episodes titled 'Evolutionary War'. Guess what it's about?

 

Extra points to whoever recognizes the voice of Phil Sebben (no peeking!).

Enjoy.

Read More...

Summary only...