Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part IV – Moscow’s Stray Dogs “Evolving Greater Intelligence”!
I want to draw your attention to this article: Moscow’s Stray Dogs Evolving Greater Intelligence, Including a Mastery of the Subway, which appeared on Dawkins’ website at the weekend.
Firstly, I don’t know whether Dawkins added this article to his website himself, or if one of his evolved apes did, but it is quite bizarre that anyone could believe the angle to this story, which was reported in Popular Science. It is amazing how people who think of themselves as scientists can believe that ‘evolution’ can explain away everything.
For every 300 Muscovites, there’s a stray dog wandering the streets of Russia’s capital. And according to Andrei Poyarkov, a researcher at the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, the fierce pressure of urban living has driven the dogs to evolve wolf-like traits, increased intelligence, and even the ability to navigate the subway.
Poyarkov has studied the dogs, which number about 35,000, for the last 30 years. Over that time, he observed the stray dog population lose the spotted coats, wagging tails, and friendliness that separate dogs from wolves, while at the same time evolving social structures and behaviors optimized to four ecological niches occupied by what Poyarkov calls guard dogs, scavengers, wild dogs, and beggars.
The guard dogs follow around, and receive food from, the security personnel at Moscow’s many fenced in sites. They think the guards are their masters, and serve as semi-feral assistants. The scavengers roam the city eating garbage. The wild dogs are the most wolf-like, hunting mice, rats, and cats under the cover of night.
But beggar dogs have evolved the most specialized behavior. Relying on scraps of food from commuters, the beggar dogs can not only recognize which humans are most likely to give them something to eat, but have evolved to ride the subway. Using scents, and the ability to recognize the train conductor’s names for different stops, they incorporate many stations into their territories.
You have probably noticed the silliest suggestion, i.e. that the dogs are evolving “wolf-like traits”.
Domestic dogs were bred from wild dogs, silly. And with an increased gene pool due to interbreeding, the dogs will be more like their wild ancestors than domestic dogs are, which were bred to favour certain characteristics.
The spotted coats, wagging tails, and friendliness that separate dogs from wolves can be explained by an experiment carried out by Soviet biologist Dmitri Belyaev, who:
…set up a Russian silver fox research centre in Novosibirsk, setting out to test his theory that the most important selected characteristic for the domestication of dogs was a lack of aggression. He began to select foxes that showed the least fear of humans and bred them. After 10-15 years, the foxes he bred showed affection to their keepers, even licking them. They barked, had floppy ears and wagged their tails. They also developed spotted coats – a surprising development that was connected with a decrease in their levels of adrenaline, which shares a biochemical pathway with melanin and controls pigment production.
Biologist Andrei Poyarkov explains,
With stray dogs, we’re witnessing a move backwards, that is, to a wilder and less domesticated state, to a more ‘natural’ state.” As if to prove his point, strays do not have spotted coats, they rarely wag their tails and are wary of humans, showing no signs of affection towards them.
Poyarkov reckons that “dumping a pet dog on the streets of Moscow amounts to a near-certain death sentence” and “fewer than 3 per cent survive”.
So there are tough mutts down there. Wily ones too.
Naturally, the dogs have adapted (not evolved) to their new environment. Poyarkov reckons that the pack leader is “not necessarily the strongest or most dominant dog, but the most intelligent – and is acknowledged as such. The pack depends on him for its survival.” With fewer than one in thirty abandoned pet dogs surviving, we can understand why intelligence is so respected by the other dogs.
It should worry us that such bad science is being perpetuated in the popular media. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. I suggest this describes the Theory of Evolution. If there is so much indisputable evidence for it, why are we presented with such desperate attempts to try and convince us/perpetuate the myth?
The other posts to date:
Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part I
Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part II – Five Minutes
Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part III – Indoctrination Camp for Children
Tyler Durden,
Tiktaalik won’t do it;
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans” (Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.” (Owen 2006). But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is INCOMPLETE. Scientists as of yet UNABLE to determine what the hind fins and tail MIGHT have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).
Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature ”MAY” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “ANTICIPATE” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.
We are reminded of the history of a lobed-finned fish called the coelacanth considered by evolutionists to be an index fossil that would date sedimentary strata to millions of years (the Devonian, a period in the Paleozoic Era). However, in 1938 a coelacanth was discovered alive off the coast of South Africa. Since then, others have been filmed and coelacanths have recently appeared in the South Pacific. Tiktaalik had lobed fins like the coelacanth and it “would have breathed like a lungfish”, says senior assistant curator Jennifer Clack of Cambridge’s University Museum of Zoology (Owen 2006).
Evolutionist Michael Denton states:
If the case of the coelacanth illustrates anything, it shows how difficult it is to draw conclusions about the overall biology of organisms from their skeletal remains alone. Because the soft biology of extinct groups can NEVER BE KNOWN with ANY certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be INSECURE. The coelacanth represents yet another instance where a newly discovered species, which might have provided the elusive evidence of intermediacy so long sought by evolutionary biology, ultimately proved to be only another peripheral twig on the presumed tree of life (Denton 1985).
In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically “like a scale-covered arm” with “bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist” (AP 2006). Shubin is speaking of an unstable macroevolutionary cornerstone called homology. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology defines homology as, “the fundamental similarity of a particular structure in different organisms, which is ASSUMED to be due to descent from a common ancestor” . The word assumed means supposed or taken for granted. The whole theory of homology assumes macroevolution to be a fact.
One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik’s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers.
Conclusion
Evolutionist Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, who was not involved in the study, said it’s IMPOSSIBLE to tell if Tiltaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates (AP 2006), and the NYT states Tiktaalik is STILL A FISH (Wilford 2006).
As yet, many zoologists—creationists and evolutionists—have been unable to examine the fossils or their cast impressions first-hand. Stories that shout “one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals” (AP 2006) have traditionally been a flash in the evolutionary pan.
Your very eloquent description (you should be on telly) of Archeopteryx leads me to an inevitable conclusion – it’s either a bird or a hoax, probably the latter.The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion over the very few other samples ‘discovered’. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent “discoveries” are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur.
So given the choice of thinking for myself or buying into the secular/evolutionary mumbo jumbo that is prevalent today, I’ll stick with my opinion. BTW, you claim to have presented ‘empirical’ evidence. For someone who claims a remarkable familiarity with ‘functionally tridactyl’ and ‘retroverted hallux’, not forgetting of course ‘dromaeosaurs and troontids’, you really should know the definition of the word ‘empirical’, and that your posts are nothing of the sort. Thanks for playing though!
Tyler Durden,
A wolf IS a dog.
Canis Ferox? You mean the SUPPOSED ancestor, surely. What with there only ever having been two fossils ever discovered of this creature, both in Central Mexico. Perhaps he liked the Samba music? When did he learn to swim? Oh, ‘continental drift’, you say.
See how ridiculously contrived these fairy-tales have to get in order to give some small semblance of truth to them?
‘Counting craters won’t do I’m afraid’
English,
It’ll do me. All your ‘arguments’ seem to come from ‘articles’ ‘published’ in religious ‘journals’. Cite me one from ‘Nature’ and I might start to take them seriously. I won’t hit you with any more inverted commas for the moment.
English Viking – “BTW, you claim to have presented ‘empirical’ evidence. For someone who claims a remarkable familiarity with ‘functionally tridactyl’ and ‘retroverted hallux’, not forgetting of course ‘dromaeosaurs and troontids’, you really should know the definition of the word ‘empirical’, and that your posts are nothing of the sort.”
Did you not read the “My previous post regarding transitional fossils seems to have been lost via the interweb, oh well, such is technology: here’s a recap” part of my post? I gave links to each of the fossils mentioned, perhaps Stewart can inform me how to post links here…
“But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is INCOMPLETE.” All fossils are technically “incomplete” – they’re millions/billions of years old, dug from the Earth itself. We’re very lucky to have the ones we do have.
“Your very eloquent description (you should be on telly) of Archeopteryx leads me to an inevitable conclusion – it’s either a bird or a hoax” – That’s the logical fallacy of false dichotmoy – there are other options, i.e. it’s an intermediate fossil of dinosaurs/birds based on the evidence. Your ignorance and failure to read said evidence is your problem, and you seem to have no issues showing it for all to see.
You quote Neil Shubin with regard to Tiktaalik – you do realise who Shubin is, yes?
English Viking – “A wolf IS a dog.”
Oh good grief. Is English actually your first language, or perhaps you have trouble with basic maths:
The domesticated dog as we know it today evolved from the grey wolf. Earliest fossils of Canis lupus familiaris are only 15,000 years old. The grey wolf, as I posted earlier, can be traced back to 800,000 years, or 150,000 years.
So, which came first? And this is not a trick question…
Tyler Durden,
I don’t agree (as you know) that the ‘evidence’ you cite can be traced back to the dates you state. The ‘which came first’ is exactly my point.
Shubin is the guy who claims to have discovered this species of fish. I wasn’t quoting him to prove my point, I was demonstrating the split in opinion amongst senior academics of the evolutionary bent.
Empirical:Based on and verifiable by OBSERVATION, rather than theory or pure logic. Posting links to whatever and whomever you like will not provide empirical proof of your points, nor mine. Evolution has never been ‘observed’.
Dr Baxter,
A fact is a fact, regardless of whether it written in ‘Nature’, ‘The Bible’ or on the back of ‘fag packet’.
Do you dispute that the Sun is decreasing in mass, or that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, or that the dust mantle on the Moon is suspiciously shallow?
English Viking – “I don’t agree (as you know) that the ‘evidence’ you cite can be traced back to the dates you state.”
That is not the fault of the science, nor the evidence gathered, but merely your dogmatic and close-minded view of the world. Your failure to read, understand or accept the evidence presented does *not* falsify the evidence at hand (you’d need actual evidence to the contrary for that), it only shows your ignorance.
“Evolution has never been ‘observed’.” Oh dear. Do you not get tired being wrong on a subject you seem to know nothing about? You mean to say you never read about Richard Lenski and his E. coli long-term evolution experiment? Tut, tut. How very lazy.
English,
Indeed it is, if it is a fact. You do not quote facts – you quote wilful misinterpretations of half and quarter truths designed to kick moon dust in the faces of the gullible. There is quite a little industry in the manufacture of such rubbish – the motives of those who manufacture them are not,of course, relevant in framing a rejoinder to their ‘arguments” but they sure as eggs are relevant to a decison not to bother. That’s the difference between the benighted muckrakings you quote and a reasoned argument; purity of purpose. And that’s why none of the stuff you spout and splutter EVER appears in any science journal.
“Oftentimes, to win us to our harm/ the instruments of darkness tell us truths;/ Win us with honest trifles, to betray us/ In deepest consequence.”.
Dr Baxter,
Which one do you dispute?
Hi Tyler,
The spam filter caught your post with all the links in it. It is now up, four posts from the bottom of page 3.
English Viking – “…the depth of the dust mantle on the moon should be literally miles thick, not the couple of inches we see on the NASA photos and Moon landing video footage. How can this be explained? (I would accept the answer ‘We do not know how thick the dust mantle of the moon is, because no-one has ever been there and the landings were faked’, as this seems a reasonable possibility).”
“should be literally miles thick…” – Really? Says who?
Sometimes, things just need to be repeated:
“I would accept the answer ‘We do not know how thick the dust mantle of the moon is, because no-one has ever been there and the landings were faked’, as this seems a reasonable possibility.” – English Viking.
A reasonable possibility?? ROTFLMAO – Houston, we have a problem.
You do realise our Moon has no atmosphere, yes?
Thanks Stewart, sorry about the multiple posts.
Tyler Durden,
‘That is not the fault of the science, nor the evidence gathered, but merely your dogmatic and close-minded view of the world. Your failure to read, understand or accept the evidence presented does *not* falsify the evidence at hand (you’d need actual evidence to the contrary for that), it only shows your ignorance.’
Your opinion, and you are entitled to it, is most certainly not a fact. I am not ignorant of your arguments, I disagree with them. If you mean ignorant in the more pejorative sense, name calling is usually a sign of weakness of argument.
Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution. It is not possible to observe evolution (so evolutionists say) because of the inordinate periods of time required for mutations and selections to take place. If the best example you can come up with is one strain of E-coli virus changing into another strain of E-coli virus, after some very UNnatural selection, it’s not terribly convincing. It’s still a strain of E-coli virus.
As I have said before, you expect me to know the inside leg measurement of Dawkins and his ilk, plus all their latest nonsenses, and then call me lazy or ignorant if I cannot recite chapter and verse, yet you display next to no knowledge of Theology. Have you ever read the 39 articles of faith? Are you familiar with the writings of Luther, or Augustine, Tozer, Lewis, GH Lang, Charles Coates, John Wesley, CH Macintosh or GH Pember? I could go on, but you get my drift. And you call ME ignorant.
On the most basic level, have you ever read The Bible ( I mean studied it, not skimmed it on the odd occasion you may have found yourself in a Church, or at school) because if not, you are in no position to make pronouncements on what you think that ‘religion’ says on anything.
Dr Baxter,
”All things are subject to interpretation and whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not of truth.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
Tyler Durden,
“I would accept the answer ‘We do not know how thick the dust mantle of the moon is, because no-one has ever been there and the landings were faked’, as this seems a reasonable possibility.” – English Viking.
A reasonable possibility?? ROTFLMAO – Houston, we have a problem.
I suppose you think that Star Trek is real, because you saw it on the telly.
I did not say they were faked, I accepted it as a possibility. Evidence of a enquiring mind, you see.
It is not strictly true that t0he Moon has no atmosphere, but I know what you mean and it is all the more reason for a thicker dust mantle. Or perhaps the dust was just sand, somewhere in a Nevada film studio. Who knows?
English Viking – “I am not ignorant of your arguments, I disagree with them. If you mean ignorant in the more pejorative sense, name calling is usually a sign of weakness of argument.”
I’m not using the word ignorant in the more pejorative sense (I’ve studied critical thinking and argumentation), merely stating that you obviously haven’t read the literature or data on such wide and varied issues – and yet you feel quoting from some creationist website, or stating *your* non-expert opinion on aspects of science counts for something.
I don’t care what you think or say, only what you can prove.
Yes, I’ve studied your bible (five years under the Oblate Order in high school, compulsory), I have a copy on my bookshelf, and read it most days but not for the same reason you do – it’s also one of the reasons why I’m an atheist. Recently, I’ve finished reading “The Year of Living Biblically” by AJ Jacobs, very entertaining. Also, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman, fascinating stuff. Yes, I even watched “The Bible: A History” last night on Channel4, though I found “Christianity: A History” on Discovery Channel last Saturday far more interesting.
In what way do you claim that I “display next to no knowledge of Theology”?? All my posts here refer to Dawkins/evolution/science issues.
English,
I do not dispute that the moon is moving away from us. Total eclipses will become a thing of the past. I do not dispute that the moon dust is shallow. I do not dispute that the sun gets through a fair bit of fuel every second. But it has plenty left. These are the facts we have to deal with. The perverse extrapolations from these facts, the base distortions of them, made for who knows what corrupt reasons, the extrapolations and distortions which you think somehow significant, mean nothing.
Science has nothing like the political power that religion had, nor should it – religion is politcal – if it not about mind-control it is about nothing – science isn’t – Fred’s argument therefore doesn’t apply which puts it in the company of most of your arguments.
English Viking – “It is not strictly true that t0he Moon has no atmosphere, but I know what you mean and it is all the more reason for a thicker dust mantle.”
“all the more reason” – Where are you getting this spurious idea that our Moon should have a thicker dust mantle? Is this just your opinion or from a specific source?
Our Moon is surrounded by a vacuum, so its “atmosphere” is less than one hundred trillionth the density of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level.
“I did not say they (Moon landings) were faked, I accepted it as a possibility.” And you have evidence for this possibility?? You can be so open-minded that your brains fall out – a metaphor for being gullible.
“Evidence of a enquiring mind, you see.” Oh, the irony!
It’s becoming interesting to read English’s ever more convoluted, and ever narrower and less convincing, arguments. I have other stuff to do.
Maybe later.
Ian,
Re. different types of eyes.
Why would you?
That’s like saying if people existed then all houses would be built the same way, but they aren’t, therefore people don’t exist.
When you lower the level of pride you have through belief in evolution theory, you might just see the evidence of Creation. It is literally everywhere.
Tyler Durden,
One piece of evidence for your lack of theological understanding is your conflation of Christianity with Catholicism.
The main piece of evidence I have for doubting the Moon landings is the existence of the Van Allen belt and it’s lethal levels of radioactivity. The Moon is about 240,000 miles away (it has moved a little further away since I started writing, but you seem sceptical) and the Astronauts would have needed to have passed through the belt, exposing themselves to lethal levels of radiation. Nasa claim the craft were shielded, but I think it is possible that the amount of shielding required would have made the craft too heavy to get off the ground, let alone reach the Moon. That and the fact that no other nation has been there, despite 40 years of technological advancements. Please note that I DOUBT them, I do not dismiss them out of hand, but nor do I accept them on the grounds that I saw a spaceman playing golf on what was alleged to be the moon.
All the shots we see of space craft and astronauts nowadays are in a low Earth orbit of around 200 miles above the earth, well inside the safe zone.
BTW Nasa were very concerned about the possibility of Eagle One, the lunar lander, disappearing into the dust mantle that they had calculated to be much thicker than it actually was (or not, as the case may be).
‘Oh, the irony’. I think it ironic that the one who calls me ignorant should dismiss the idea that anything has been faked, without studying the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
Dr Baxter,
Perhaps you consider certain extapolations perverse because they lead to conclusions that you find unpalatable, or have already dismissed and refuse to reconsider?
We appear to share the same convictions about religion, so criticising religion to me is a bit like preaching to the converted. You’ll have frame any objections you have about my around my attempts to follow Christ and not around the following of Institutions, Churches and wot-not.
Science is a religion when a person is required to exercise faith in areas where reasonable proof is missing, so Fred was right all along.
Dr Baxter,
Insert the letter ‘r’ and the word ‘faith’ in the appropriate areas for me, ta very much.
English,
Unpalatable? No, once again, I would try to assure you that I have nothing to gain by believing that Cretioist or Christian beliefs about the world are, er, mistaken. So, not unpalatable – merely laughable. The young moon rubbish is just one of every single example you could list that conflicts with the fact that the Earth itself is about 4.5Bn years old.
And, once again, I suggest it’s most likely that you only know of Christ thanks to a political decison made by Consantine 1st so your attempt to dissociate your beliefs from religion, organised or otherwise, fails.
I don’t disagree that some scientists act and talk as though only science can explain everything. I consider them poor scientists. Fred was right all right, but about religion and political power.
Dr Baxter,
I know of Christ because of the work of the Holy Spirit within the Apostles, who roamed the world making disciples of Christ by the preaching of The Gospel, hundreds of years before Constantine was even born. The efforts of, primarily, Peter, James, John and last but by no means least Paul are responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout modern day Turkey, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malta, Lebanon and numerous other places, with those converted in these places carrying on the process. Mark took the truth to Egypt, Persians and Medes were recorded as being converted as early as Pentecost, just 50 days after the resurrection of Christ, almost 300 years before Constantine’s rule. They carried and spread this truth throughout Iran, Iraq and Syria.
As the above is true, my ‘attempt to disassociate my beliefs from religion’ does not fail.
Stewart
Houses are designed by lots of different architects. There isn’t one global architect drafting every single building. Are you making the case that there are a lot of creators, all badgering away on their own little projects.
Evidence for evolution is actually,/i> all around you. There’s no literal about it.
Ooops, didn’t close the italics htnl properly. I’m sure you get my point.
English,
‘They carried and spread this truth throughout Iran, Iraq and Syria.’
That’s lasted well.
‘As the above is true, my ‘attempt to disassociate my beliefs from religion’ does not fail.’
I’m afraid it does because the efforts you describe are trifling compared with what happened when Constantine saw that Christianity was useful as a political tool – he saw that from the way that the early bishops gained easy power over people from it. So he nationalised it. That’s when it took off. Without him you’d be a follower of Odin.
So, Ian, an architect would stick to the one style all his life, would he?
Tyler,
No, no, no; YOU say Archaeopteryx lived in the ‘late Jurassic Period around 145 million years ago,’ not me.
China’s space walk was faked.
Dr Baxter,
What was it that Constantine thought so politically expedient about a piffling religion with hardly any followers, so expedient ‘he nationalised it, and that’s when it took off’?
Your argument is self defeating.
He nationalised because he had no choice, it was already taking over his nation and had been for about 250 years. That’s why it became expedient, along with the influence it gave him with followers in other countries.
The downturn in the numbers of followers in Middle Eastern nations is due to the horrors of islam, but is more than compensated for by the explosion of numbers in China. There is still a Christian presence in these nations, so 2000 years is lasting well.
If Constantine was so important to organised religion, why does the current Bishop of Rome cite the Apostle Peter as his forerunner, and not Constantine?
Stewart
An architect would stick to the same style for each job she did. And after finding a solution to a problem that worked would use that solution over and over.
No, Ian, ’she’ might design buildings in a great number of styles.
She’d also be working for a client who’d have their own ideas about the project. And she’d really like to win a prestigious award for her work. Possibly get it in one of the glossy architecture magazines. Maybe a big glossy monograph of her life’s work.
How much further would you like to twist this rather weak metaphor?
Mr Pattinson,
It’s an allegory, not a metaphor.
‘What was it that Constantine thought so politically expedient about a piffling religion with hardly any followers, so expedient ‘he nationalised it, and that’s when it took off’?
‘Your argument is self defeating.’
On the contrary, the Christian model of mind control was proving itself effective – I don’t deny that -many cults do the same today. Condantine was looking for an effective method of mind control – he just HATED disorder – and the Old Gods were too, well, mercurial – disorderly – no consistent line for diverse peoples to follow. A montheistic creed was just the thing to simplify the message of fear that he wanted spread far and wide… the Christians were lucky in their timing. So, my argument is, if anything, self-reinforcing, And you and those who think like you are puppets of the power lust of an ancient emperor. He’d be pleased.
Dr Baxter,
‘he nationalised it, and that’s when it took off’
‘the Christian model of mind control was proving itself effective’
Would you like a piece of cake? Oh, sorry, you’ve already eaten it.
English Viking – “One piece of evidence for your lack of theological understanding is your conflation of Christianity with Catholicism.” – I’ve mentioned the other 36,000 schisms of Christianity here before so I would in no way conflate Christianity with Catholicism than I would conflate Christianity with Calvinism, Lutheranism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholicism is simply the largest schism.
The World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press (2001 edition), counts 33,830 seperate schisms in Christianity so I may be out by a couple depending on what has splintered even more in Christianity since the 2001 publication.
What particular schism were you indoctrinated into?
What about the recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 on the lunar surface and Collins in the command module? I’m sure if the Soviets (and other independent sources: Kaminski and Baysinger) had noticed that these transmissions were coming from Nevada they’d have blown the whistle immediately, if not sooner…
Oh wait… you think the Soviets were in on it too??
Tyler Durden,
Being snidey won’t prove your point.
The WCE is a nonsense which bases it’s ever varying number not on schisms, as you put it, but on the the appearance of a denomination within a separate country. Catholicism is listed hundreds of times, as there are hundreds of countries in which it appears, even though it is only one organisation and not very Christian. You really should get better information to criticise Christianity with. Simply regurgitating unsubstantiated figures from atheist websites won’t do it. I contacted The Centre for the Study of Global Christianity, the very same organisation these figures come from, in an effort to get a copy of this list. It doesn’t exist, and below is a full transcript of their reply.
Thank you for your inquiry concerning the number of Christian denominations
in the world today.
To my knowledge, there is no single listing of every
denomination.
The Center for the Study of Global Christianity, however,
estimates that there are some 41,000 denominations worldwide (counting each
denomination separately in each country in which it has a presence).
The World Christian Database (WCD), maintained by the Center for the Study
of Global Christianity, includes data on more than 9,000 denominations.
Access to the WCD is by subscription only, however, and the current cost is
$2,000 per year. In addition, although subscribers can view a list of
denominations online, downloading the entire list is a violate of copyright
and fair use laws.
The World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) includes listings of many thousands
of denominations (most of the 9,000+ in the WCD, plus the names only for a
large fraction of the 41,000). Denominations are listed in articles about
each of the world’s 238 countries. The WCE may be ordered from a variety of
online book retailers, at a cost of around $300 (depending on the retailer).
Again, however, preparing a listing of all the world’s denominations from
the information in the WCE would violate copyright and fair use laws.
I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please
feel free to e-mail me.
Sincerely,
Center for the Study of Global Christianity
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
130 Essex Street
South Hamilton, MA 01982
I have edited only the correspondent’s name and number, for obvious reasons.
The facts, as appear to me, are thus;
i) The only source you have for your claim of 33,830 (out of date now, as Christianity expands its presence) Christian denominations do not have a list of this number and know of no such list, held with themselves or anywhere else.
ii) They claim a figure of only ‘9000′ odd, and reveal that the figure of 41,112 is estimated and that neither they nor the WCE have comprehensive details to substantiate this number.
iii) The counting process includes duplicates of every denomination, if that denomination appears in more than one country. It is counted again, every time it appears in a different country.
iv) They will flog you some of the figures, for the very tidy price of a couple of K.
The ‘list’ also includes such rubbish as ‘The Aryan Brotherhood’, a quasi-religious prison gang, Mormons and all sorts of other cults which are obviously not Christian. It is also entirely possible to have differently named denominations with exactly the same doctrines. This is normal, yet you try to paint it as though there has been some form of disagreement between the two.
Do you know the difference (without Googling) between Calvinism and Lutheranism? Is there one? If you’re honest, you’ll admit that you don’t know.
You may wish (or not) to scan the comments of a previous post on this blog entitled ‘In support of free speech’. The conversation between myself and Mr Gibbs. He was asked to name these denominations, and singularly failed to do so. You should not fall into the same trap as him, quoting other people’s fake figures without checking them first.
With regard to the Moon landings, you are again doing what you appear prone to doing, which is misrepresenting my position, raising new points without dealing the old ones first. I have no idea about the transmissions. If what you say is correct, it lends credence to an actual landing. I have not said that they were faked, I said it is a possibility. One point, which you have not dealt with, which lends credence to fakery is the Van Allen belt and the lethal levels of radiation there. Do you not think that it is possible that the US lied? After all, they hardly have a galactic reputation for telling the truth, do they?
Don’t try to paint me one of the tinfoil hat brigade in an attempt to devalue what I say on Christianity. It’s too transparent a trick.
English Viking – Calvinism and Lutheranism – John Calvin v Martin Luther, Calvinism was a Protestant split from Catholicism conceived in Geneva due to persecution; Lutheranism also formed during the Reformation movement in 16th Century giving rise to another Protestant schism due to Luther’s disagreement with the Catholic church over ‘tides’ or payments for sin – this was covered in the series “Christianity: A History” last year on Channel4 which I watched.
What particular schism of Christianity were you indoctrinated into?
English Viking – What do you know (without Googling) of the Van Allen belts and the amount of radiation the astronatus were exposed to? The Van Allen belts do *not* extend from Earth to the Moon, only a very small area, plus the astronatus were in a command module with a metal hull, that also had to survive re-entry thru Earth’s atmosphere – they had sufficient protection.
English Viking – “I would accept the answer ‘We do not know how thick the dust mantle of the moon is, because no-one has ever been there and the landings were faked’, as this seems a reasonable possibility.”
“Don’t try to paint me one of the tinfoil hat brigade in an attempt to devalue what I say on Christianity.”
The moon-landings faked? A reasonable possibility? I have no need to paint you as anything, you’re doing a wonderful job all by yourself…
Tyler,
I have not been indoctrinated. Perhaps you have been indoctrinated with worldly atheism? I am not a member of any Church, other than the universal one. Nor have I ever been.
For ‘tides’ read ‘tithes’. It’s a corruption of ‘tenths’, or 10 % of income, which was traditionally the amount required by the Church of Rome (as well as numerous other payments) as a sign of a disciple’s commitment to God and the Church. It was not a payment for sin. Those payments were called ‘indulgences’ (not sanctioned anywhere in The Bible, BTW)
I didn’t ask the reason for the existence of the two denominations, I asked if you knew of any difference in doctrine between the two.
What about the Van Allen belt?
English Viking – Considering the other highly dangerous risks involved with space flight/moon landing such as lift-off, landing, splash-down, re-entry, re-docking, moon lift-off – The Van Allen belts would be way down on any list of danger to the astronauts. Perhaps one hour to travel through, in a hull made of metal, while wearing suits would only expose them to about 50 mSv, not enough for cancer/death.
But yet you find The Van Allen belts a sticking point? Hmmm.
Tyler Durden,
It may have escaped your attention, but radiation has the irritating ability to pass through almost all solids, including metals. Sitting in a steel and aluminium coke can with a rocket on the bottom is not adequate protection. 12 inch thick slabs of lead might do it, but then you have the weight problem.
From what I recall of the VAB is that it is not just one but two belts. It contains potentially lethal and certainly harmful levels of radioactive particles. It would have been necessary for Moon landers to have passed through both belts twice, (once there, once back) which would have been more than enough to have killed them at worst or given terrible bouts of radiation sickness, which if not lethal at the time usually results in premature death from cancer, along with birth defects. I cannot give the precise levels of radiation present, as I have either forgotten or never knew in the first place, but I do not think it is disputed amongst scientists that they exist and that they are dangerously harmful. I have to tell you that I Googled it yesterday, so my memory may be fresher than it otherwise would be.
Is it not possible that NASA launched numerous Apollo missions into a low earth orbit (inside the belt) and the craft and occupants sat in orbit for a few days, just like they do now, then re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere and ditched in the sea? Could the extra-terrestrial radio transmissions you speak of have come from this orbit? Given the US penchant for dominating other countries and stealing their land, why no Moon Base Alpha, particularly as the US were the only ones to allegedly possess the technology to get there, and still are 40 years later?
The heat shield that was present on the Apollo missions deflected heat, not radioactivity. It would have been perfectly useless for this purpose.
English Viking – I would say the difference in doctrine between Calvinism and Lutheranism is that Calvinism does not allow humans access/salvation to their god regardless of behaviour, it was all up to their god i.e. no free will; while Lutheranism allows such access/salvation through prayer and scripture.
“I am not a member of any Church, other than the universal one.” What is this universal one?
‘he nationalised it, and that’s when it took off’
‘the Christian model of mind control was proving itself effective’
‘Would you like a piece of cake? Oh, sorry, you’ve already eaten it. ‘
That’s right English. It was proving itself effective as a means of mind control. Other cults were and are still effective at that too. What Constantine did was shut down the opposition or your cult, as it was then, may have faded, as cults do. Except in those countries you mentioned of course – what were they? Oh yes: Iran, Iraq and Syria.
There is a kind of natural selection of cults. (T.E. lawrence’s point, not mine, although I think it’s a very clever observation). Constanine tipped the balance.
Notice I say it was proving itself effective as a method of mind control. Not that it was truth or that Constanine was in the least interested in spiritual truth. Try and bear that in your controlled mind, my old marionette. Julian tried his best to stop the madness but he didn’t have enough time, something that both Gibbon and I lament.