Upcoming ID meeting at Cold Spring Harbor

Posted 31 July 2006 by Matt Brauer

Many readers of this blog will be familiar with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. CSHL is the Long Island educational and research institution that hosts some of the most important professional meetings in several biological disciplines. It has for decades been the "home campus" of phage, bacterial and yeast genetics, as well as of computational neuroscience, developmental biology and various branches of genomics, bioinformatics and systems biology. As a frequent attendee of meetings and symposia at CSHL, I am on their regular mailing list. I recently got an announcement of a meeting to be inaugurated this December that should be of great interest to followers of Intelligent Design. The meeting, "Engineering Principles in Biological Systems" ought to be exactly the kind of forum at which "Intelligent Design" researchers present their conclusions. The meeting announcement reads, in part:

There are two key ideas behind this meeting: that theoretical engineering principles that have been developed in the context of human engineered systems are useful in understanding biological function, and that these principles apply across scales, from the cellular to the organism level. In keeping with these ideas, we hope to attract researchers in fields ranging from bacterial systems biology to neural systems, with shared interest in engineering principles. Sessions will be broken up according to broad areas of engineering, and there will also be a session on evolution. The conference is intended to foster cross-disciplinary exchange of ideas and expertise between engineers, mathematicians and biologists interested in the analysis of diverse biological systems through the application of engineering principles. While a number of speakers have been invited, please note that the majority of oral presentations will be drawn from openly submitted abstracts.

Topics of symposia include:

Engineering Principles: From Bacterial & Biochemical Systems to Neural Systems

Dynamics, Feedback & Control I

Dynamics, Feedback & Control II

Game Theory & Learning

Evolution & Synthetic Biology

Signaling & Communications

Now, as Jason Rosenhouse has discussed in his post on The State of ID Research, the ID movement has been quick to appropriate for itself the results of other people's work. We might imagine that, rather than subject his thinking to critical review, Dembski will instead simply post an abstract or two from this meeting to his website, and claim credit for ID from work which he does not himself understand. I suspect that the mere fact that this CSH meeting invokes the analogy of engineering in its discussion of living systems will be proclaimed as another triumph for ID-think. On the other hand, if the ID movement is sincerely interested in the themes of this meeting, they really ought to be sending one of their researchers (a grad student or post-doc, at least) to engage with other researchers in the field -- their own field, if you believe what Dembski says. There would be some risk to sending a representative from the DI to such a meeting. It could end up being rather uncomfortable for the participant (I haven't seen much evidence that there is any biologist associated with the DI that could hold up their end of a conversation at a meeting like this). But this meeting presents a test of the sincerity of the ID movement's claims to be concerned with any element of actual science. Is there anyone who can represent ID at this scientific meeting? Will there be any attempt from the DI to engage in scientific discussion with the people who best understand biological systems? Or will Dembski, Behe et al. continue to be satisfied with presenting their results to church youth groups and bible colleges? The meeting runs December 3 - 6, 2006. The abstract deadline is September 15, 2006, so there's still enough time to get an abstract together (though only if you've already been doing some research). I'll be checking the CSHL site to see if any ID proponents are planning to present anything.

256 Comments

David B. Benson · 31 July 2006

Don't hold your breath...

Dave Cerutti · 31 July 2006

I suppose they could put together their ideas as a flowchart or cartoon and present them in poster form.

But, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

They'll just point to this meeting as further evidence that, despite the concerted efforts of a cabal of atheist scientists, the ID movement is growing, fluorishing, and bearing new scientific discoveries. Expect to see this cited, informally, in op-eds and lecture circuits.

Perhaps they can also claim to have contributed to a conference on parasitology.

Frank J · 31 July 2006

While that meeting should be of particular interest to IDers, giving the "engineering" hence "design" implications, the fact is that they have an open invitation to all professional meetings. And they routinely decline to participate. Yet amazingly, the public still falls for the absurd claim that they are "shut out" because they dare to challenge "Darwinism."

jujuquisp · 31 July 2006

This ought to be right up DaveScot's alley. Too bad he no longer applies his expertise in ID to public discussions after being sacked by Dembski. LOL

Chris Hyland · 31 July 2006

If you read uncommon descent the idea seems to be that a) all biological research that invokes engineering principles is ID research, and b) many of the people who do this kind of research really don't believe in evolution, but won't admit it for fear of damging their careers. Therefore no one who officialy represents ID needs to go becuase the scientific community is doing their research for them.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 31 July 2006

Can we apply for student travel funds from the U of E? I suppose I could add all the faculty members as co-authors if that would help. If not I will try the Delta Pi Gamma Research Institute, better known as the beer fund. I already have an abstract outline. I think it's a dandy and combined with the type III secretory system modifications and the Panda outhouse it ought to wow those in attendance, especially if I put a keg beside my poster, maybe decorate it with some bamboo, add some background music....

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

normdoering · 31 July 2006

Frank J wrote:

While that meeting should be of particular interest to IDers, giving the "engineering" hence "design" implications, the fact is that they have an open invitation to all professional meetings. And they routinely decline to participate.

What do you mean by "open invitation"? Does someone bother to email Dembski and Behe and tell them to come on down? If I were Dembski or Behe I'd go and report on that meeting. Just being there would boost his credentials. It never hurts to meet your academic enemies face to face just to let them know you're serious.

Todd · 31 July 2006

You would think if he was going to do this he would have done so already. Biomedical engineering, which is what this conference is about, has been around for 50 years. If any IDers do go, they will likely be sorely dissappointed. This meeting is about 3 types of people: those who understand biology, those who understand design, and those that understand both. I have been in biomedical engineering for 5 years and can tell you that far from engineering principles revealing signs of intelligent designer, it shows no end to bone-head design features that would likely end a human engineer in jail. I suspect this will likely be a routine issue at the conference, I can tell you it is nearly a daily issue in my courses.

The issue is, at least in my undergrad university we were first trained in engineering and biology/medicine seperately, then trained to put the two together. So I learned to think like an engineer before I learned to apply that thinking to biological and medical issues. Engineers are, of course, designers. When looking at anything, we are trained to ask "why is it designed like this". This becomes extremely frustrating when dealing with biological systems. This question is useful in many instances. But for biolgical systems an annoyingly large amount of the time there is no answer to the question. It is how it is because of some random thing that means it couldn't have been any other way. It is the exact opposite of human design, and it makes the human designers I know extremely frustrated. It seems very hard for engineers to accept this, it goes against everything I was trained and it appears what others I know were trained as well. But it is painfully obvious when looking at biological systems in any sort of detail, and is something we have all had to come to terms with.

This very well may explain why there is a disproportionate number of engineers in the ID community. They are trained to find design and purpose in what they see. If they don't look close enough, or don't understand what they are looking at it, it would be extremely easy to see design that simply isn't there.

wright · 31 July 2006

"Or will Dembski, Behe et al. continue to be satisfied with presenting their results to church youth groups and bible colleges?"

If only they were. Then at least one generation of school boards would be spared the former's blathering.

Keanus · 31 July 2006

Dembski, Behe, and Wells will probably charter a boat, anchor it in Cold Spring Harbor, present papers to each other and then claim they were shut out by the conspiracy of "evilutionists."

Gerard Harbison · 31 July 2006

What a gosh-darn shame that back in 1995, before the Wedge Document and The Design Inference and Darwin's Black Box, before most of the current generation of creationist nonsense, the most Darwinian of philosophers, Dan Dennett, titled a chapter in Darwin's Dangerous Idea with the snappy phrase Biology is Engineering.

Maybe Dembski could blog that Dennett is an IDer! After all, if Miller and Collins are IDers, why not?

Arden Chatfield · 31 July 2006

I suppose they could put together their ideas as a flowchart or cartoon and present them in poster form.

Dembski should try placemats. They've always worked well for Kent Hovind.

Matt · 31 July 2006

I actually think that this could be a very interesting conference. The CS people are starting to get sophisticated enough about biology that they can really contribute something, and the biologists are getting quantitative enough to talk to the CS and math types.

When I first saw the meeting announcement, I was a bit dismayed at the engineering language, but, y'know, that's how we've been thinking about these systems since we've been probing them. Not because they actually ARE engineered artifacts, but because engineering is something we can understand, and so makes a useful analogy. I don't think we should spend any effort at all to rein in teleological language just so the IDists can't challenge us on it. Instead, we should call THEM on it. If these conferences are about literal design in biology, then why aren't any of THEM contributing?

(And the pathetic posters of Wells and Nelson, at huge meetings where one can escape by hanging out at the bar instead of defending his work, just don't count.)

k.e. · 31 July 2006

normdoering wrote:

What do you mean by "open invitation"? Does someone bother to email Dembski and Behe and tell them to come on down?

I think if they wanted entertainment by clowns they would hire...professionals, the ad libs are more adult. Still ....Behe could line up a few more tricks and add psychic healing and crystal ball reading along with his definition of astrology as science.

shiva · 31 July 2006

...disproportionate number of engineers in the ID community. They are trained to find design and purpose in what they see...

Aren't they trained to put science into action? Instead IDiocy engineers write trashy science like information theory says it ain't possible; or it is designed because it looks designed; or 2nd LOT says it is not possible. As for the entertainment how about an IDiocy overthrows Darwinism skit starring BillD in tights wrestling Behe dressed up to look like Darwin? Surely someone remembers the photomorph of that scene one of BillD courtiers put up on UD last year?

stevaroni · 31 July 2006

Todd wrote... When looking at anything, we are trained to ask "why is it designed like this". This becomes extremely frustrating when dealing with biological systems... an annoyingly large amount of the time there is no answer to the question.

Amen. As an engineer myself, I look at the natural world all the time and think "what a wonderful, efficient, design". And then I catch myself; No, look close - what I really see is not a wonderful, efficient design, but a wonderful, efficient solution, and they're two distinctly different things. As soon as I draw that distinction, I realize that the thing I'm looking at has none of the hallmarks of a top-down design, but many of the hallmarks of a incredibly elegant kluge. And I can marvel at it nonetheless. (For those not in the engineering community, "elegant kluge" is actually considered kind of a compliment, along the lines of "making lemonade").

Todd · 31 July 2006

I actually think that this could be a very interesting conference. The CS people are starting to get sophisticated enough about biology that they can really contribute something, and the biologists are getting quantitative enough to talk to the CS and math types.
— Matt

This isn't just CS, it is engineering in general. Engineering has been contributing a lot to the study of biology and medicine for decades now, and this contribution is only increasing. And it is not just CS, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering (both solid and fluid mechanics), materials science, optical engineering, and a wide variety of other engineering-oriented fields have made large contributions to the study of medicine and biology. And I do not mean just developing equipment to do the testing, engineering approaches have been extremely helpful to pure research as well. This is not because of intelligent design, quite the opposite. It is because the human body follows the same natural laws as machines. Fluid flowing through a tube is still fluid flowing through a tube whether the tube is biological or man-made. A flexible joint behaves like a flexible joint whether it is biological or man-made. Charged particles flowing from one point to another don't cease to behave like charged particles just because they are in something alive. The living systems are naturally far more complicated, making analysis more difficult. But the same fundamental techniques still apply suprisingly well, even in highly simplified form, because the physics is ultimately still the same. This is not evidence of design, simply evidence that biological systems exist in the same universe as non-biological ones and thus are governed by the same rules. Biomedical engineering is fundamentally an attempt to use engineering principles to figure out how living systems work, not to use design principles to figure out why living systems work. At best the analogy of design might be used from time to time, but I can honestly only remember one instance of this coming up in a positive manner but a great many examples of it coming up to show why it doesn't work (or simply to make fun of the IDers and creationists, which actually happens a lot). Of course, this sometimes had to do with the focus on pathological conditions due to the medical focus, but certainly not always. ID wants it the other way around. They want evidence of design, which does not exist, and living systems that are not bound by the same rules as all other systems in the universe, which is evidently not the case or biomedical engineering would not work. They are taking evidence against their position as evidence in support of it by fundamentally and grossly misinterpreting what biomedical engineers actually do and why they do it. This is something the ID community has become quite exceptional at doing..

Aren't they trained to put science into action? Instead IDiocy engineers write trashy science like information theory says it ain't possible; or it is designed because it looks designed; or 2nd LOT says it is not possible.
— shiva

Yes, you are quite right. The coursework does have the focus I mentioned to a large degree, but this in no way excuses their action. I was not attempting to justify it, simply explain it. Such actions are highly unethical and run directly against article 2 and the majority of article 3 of the Engineering Code of Ethics, which all Professional Engineers (i.e. engineers licensed to do engineering) are expected to follow: 2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment. 3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.

Todd · 31 July 2006

I actually think that this could be a very interesting conference. The CS people are starting to get sophisticated enough about biology that they can really contribute something, and the biologists are getting quantitative enough to talk to the CS and math types.
— Matt

Aren't they trained to put science into action? Instead IDiocy engineers write trashy science like information theory says it ain't possible; or it is designed because it looks designed; or 2nd LOT says it is not possible.
— shiva

2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment. 3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.

Red Right Hand · 31 July 2006

This ought to be right up DaveScot's alley. Too bad he no longer applies his expertise in ID to public discussions after being sacked by Dembski. LOL

This is the second reference I've seen to Springer being sacked at UD, but I haven't heard any of the details. Anyone have a link or more info?

Les Lane · 1 August 2006

...ought to be exactly the kind of forum at which "Intelligent Design" researchers present their conclusions."

I didn't see clowns included in the invitation.

Anonymous_Coward · 1 August 2006

ID wants it the other way around. They want evidence of design, which does not exist, and living systems that are not bound by the same rules as all other systems in the universe, which is evidently not the case or biomedical engineering would not work. They are taking evidence against their position as evidence in support of it by fundamentally and grossly misinterpreting what biomedical engineers actually do and why they do it. This is something the ID community has become quite exceptional at doing..

Maybe those biomedical engineering firms or whatever should publicly forbid the use of words related to "design" when referring to naturally occurring processes and objects. Nothing philosophical. Just append a public statement about how ID deliberately looks for a few words and claim VICTORY!! and misrepresent their own research activities and are thus forced to make a few rules on what words cannot be used. Either way, we need better public press.

Registered User · 1 August 2006

The CS people are starting to get sophisticated enough about biology that they can really contribute something, and the biologists are getting quantitative enough to talk to the CS and math types.

Starting? Getting?

Nick Cozzarelli is rolling over in his grave. Some biologists have been working closely with mathematicians for years and some CS people have been contributing mightily to biological science for the same amount of time.

Registered User · 1 August 2006

This is the second reference I've seen to Springer being sacked at UD, but I haven't heard any of the details. Anyone have a link or more info?

Dembski caught him downloading porn.

Torbjörn Larsson · 1 August 2006

"When looking at anything, we are trained to ask "why is it designed like this". This becomes extremely frustrating when dealing with biological systems."

It also makes us stand in awe of the elegant kludge, as stevaroni says. ( Note: I was interested in biology amongst other things as a child, then trained as engineer, and later as physicist. So I might be merely appreciating my confused and conflicted viewpoints. :-)

"This very well may explain why there is a disproportionate number of engineers in the ID community."

Yes. I also have the impression from reading usenet groups that many cranks are retired engineers. We (donning my engineering hat) are trained at work to experiment in and make sense out of new areas or products. This easily translates in a mindset that doesn't work well when disconnected from practical work.

"Dembski caught him downloading porn."

Porn-mining, eh?

Frank J · 1 August 2006

What do you mean by "open invitation"? Does someone bother to email Dembski and Behe and tell them to come on down?
— normdoering

Possibly, but they are undoubtedly fully aware of the meetings from the "call for papers" ads in the journals they scour for quotes to mine.

If I were Dembski or Behe I'd go and report on that meeting. Just being there would boost his credentials. It never hurts to meet your academic enemies face to face just to let them know you're serious.
— normdoering

Absolutely, and if they were serious they would have been doing just that for more than a decade.

Corkscrew · 1 August 2006

This is the second reference I've seen to Springer being sacked at UD, but I haven't heard any of the details. Anyone have a link or more info?

There was a thread at UD that evolved into a discussion of the possible evolution of sexual behaviours such as polygamy. Dave, surprisingly, turned out to be very much in favour of the idea There was a semireligious clash of personalities between him and JanieBelle on one side, and Denyse O'Leary* and tinabrewer on the other. Outcome: Dave "retired". * Denyse is a new player on UD, who has been given shared control - not just moderator status - by Dembski. She's fairly vocally Christian - I think their pretense of objectivity may be slipping eeever so slightly...

paul flocken · 1 August 2006

Todd wrote: This is not because of intelligent design, quite the opposite. It is because the human body follows the same natural laws as machines.[snip] But the same fundamental techniques still apply suprisingly well, even in highly simplified form, because the physics is ultimately still the same. This is not evidence of design, simply evidence that biological systems exist in the same universe as non-biological ones and thus are governed by the same rules[snip] ID wants it the other way around. They want evidence of design, which does not exist, and living systems that are not bound by the same rules as all other systems in the universe, which is evidently not the case or biomedical engineering would not work. They are taking evidence against their position as evidence in support of it by fundamentally and grossly misinterpreting what biomedical engineers actually do and why they do it. This is something the ID community has become quite exceptional at doing..

For example, witness the spectacle of DaveScot claiming to violate the 2^ndLoT just by composing a sentence.

Gerard Harbison · 1 August 2006

For example, witness the spectacle of DaveScot claiming to violate the 2ndLoT just by composing a sentence.

Laws of thermodynamics, laws of grammar, what's the diff?

steve s · 1 August 2006

Comment #115988 Posted by Red Right Hand on July 31, 2006 11:49 PM (e) | kill This is the second reference I've seen to Springer being sacked at UD, but I haven't heard any of the details. Anyone have a link or more info?

Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread at AtBC, beginning at page 161 In a nutshell, what happened was, after six months of Davetard bringing embarrassment to the blog, Denyse O'Leary made some comments on the blog about one of the posts, and Davetard, not knowing she and Dembski were Best Friends Forever, marked up her comments with his own argumentative comments written in boldface, as is his habit. They were pretty rude, and Dembski ended up deleting the whole thread, as is his habit. Well, shortly afterward, Dembski announces there'll be no more marking up of comments by the administrators. Davetard objects and says for all the work he does for Dembski, he deserves that power, and if he doesn't have it, you can kiss is services goodbye. Whereupon Dembski said "goodbye!" So Davetard deports himself in the usual manner, tells O'Leary to f*** herself, calls her a hermaphrodite, and a dyke, and makes lots of comments about how ugly she is, and how she's a fundy, and Dembski's a fundy too. And now she co-moderates the blog along with Dembski, and essentially nothing's changed, Dembski still bans anyone who looks at him sideways.

Arden Chatfield · 1 August 2006

And now she co-moderates the blog along with Dembski, and essentially nothing's changed,

That's not quite true -- UD is now much more boring and now features even more Jesus.

steve s · 1 August 2006

You're right, Jesus is now about 50% of the discussion there, up from about 30%, but I still find it interesting. I mean, the Borofsky thing? Dembski's own research assistant saying Teach the Controversy is "Intelligent Design in disguise"? That's hella entertaining. I can't wait til Casey Luskin hears about that and hits the roof.

Arden Chatfield · 1 August 2006

You're right, Jesus is now about 50% of the discussion there, up from about 30%, but I still find it interesting. I mean, the Borofsky thing? Dembski's own research assistant saying Teach the Controversy is "Intelligent Design in disguise"? That's hella entertaining. I can't wait til Casey Luskin hears about that and hits the roof.

True, that was a highlight in what had otherwise been a pretty boring stretch. I just wished I could have seen Dembski smack Borofsky upside the head for that little indiscretion. What I most miss are DaveScot's boldfaced alpha male remarks inserted into people's comments. You don't find that anywhere else. :-)

Ben Z · 1 August 2006

"Davetard objects and says for all the work he does for Dembski, he deserves that power, and if he doesn't have it, you can kiss is services goodbye."

From what I saw, all that happened was that Dave linked to respond to people and could do it easier as a moderator in the same post. When Dave said he'd rather just respond to people as a regular user, Dembski said ok.

"You're right, Jesus is now about 50% of the discussion there"

Maybe from some of the responders... but I don't see Jesus in any topics.

"Denyse is a new player on UD, who has been given shared control - not just moderator status - by Dembski. She's fairly vocally Christian - I think their pretense of objectivity may be slipping eeever so slightly..."

No Christians allowed!

"Absolutely, and if they were serious they would have been doing just that for more than a decade."

LoL, what a waste of time that would be.

Red Right Hand · 1 August 2006

Steve S and Corkscrew:

Thanks for the info!

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

My film "A Sacred Proof" recently won "Best Science Doc" and 'Best Director" in the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2006. It presents an ancient irrefutable biological proof for the existence of G-d and my film company, Lucky Penny Films, is so confident in this proof that they have offered a $100,000 prize in what they are calling "The Contest of Contests" to anyone who can disprove this proof. You can check it out at www.asacredproof.com

Matt · 1 August 2006

My film "A Sacred Proof" recently won "Best Science Doc" and 'Best Director" in the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2006. It presents an ancient irrefutable biological proof for the existence of G-d and my film company, Lucky Penny Films, is so confident in this proof that they have offered a $100,000 prize in what they are calling "The Contest of Contests" to anyone who can disprove this proof. You can check it out at www.asacredproof.com
— Yehuda Freeman

Actually, according to the NYIIFVF website, it appears that you won "Best Directorial Debut Award -- Documentary". this would appear to be different from "Best Director" or "Best Science Documentary". Not that your award (or your bet challenging us to disprove the existence of your god for you) is germane to the topic of this thread, of course.

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

You're right but I'm not wrong. NYIIFVF screened my film "A Sacred Proof" (my first feature documentary) twice. The first time was in L.A. where it was awarded "Best Science Documentary" and the second was in N.Y. where it won "Best Debut Director-Documentary." I've found that when I tell people about it that it's easier to say "Best Director" which isn't exactly true but it's not a lie either. On my website (www.asacredproof.com) I've inserted the word "debut" into the award graphic and the fact that it's a documentary speaks for itself. So you've called my bluff but I'm still showing two aces.

Matt · 1 August 2006

You're right but I'm not wrong. NYIIFVF screened my film "A Sacred Proof" (my first feature documentary) twice. The first time was in L.A. where it was awarded "Best Science Documentary" and the second was in N.Y. where it won "Best Debut Director-Documentary." I've found that when I tell people about it that it's easier to say "Best Director" which isn't exactly true but it's not a lie either. On my website (www.asacredproof.com) I've inserted the word "debut" into the award graphic and the fact that it's a documentary speaks for itself. So you've called my bluff but I'm still showing two aces.
— Yehuda Freeman

That's funny, because it looks like your film was the only "science documentary" (so called) to be shown at the LA screening. More importantly, plugging your "science documentary" by means of your "contest" (which requires purchase of your DVD) is mighty close to commercial spamming. If you want to talk about the subjects this board covers, please find a suitable thread, and join in. Further marketing attempts will be deleted.

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

Not that your award (or your bet challenging us to disprove the existence of your god for you) is germane to the topic of this thread, of course.

True, not germane, but hopefully enticing enough to raise the standards (or the anti if you don't mind me sticking to the card-game metaphor) of the topic being discussed. In fact, when you see the proof in my film yourself, you'll understand that the game is over and that there is no reality to the basis of this discussion which is largely founded upon one of science's greatest false axioms. As I said before, it is not a "creationist" proof, it is biological, and has the power to make anyone, maybe even you, realize the He is your G-d too.

steve s · 1 August 2006

As I said before, it is not a "creationist" proof, it is biological, and has the power to make anyone, maybe even you, realize the He is your G-d too.

Heh would you care to bet on that?

minimalist · 1 August 2006

What the heck is a "one-signed" animal anyway? That's no taxonomic term I'm aware of.

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

That's funny, because it looks like your film was the only "science documentary" (so called) to be shown at the LA screening. I think I'll just send an email to the festival organizers asking what the awards categories were.

I'll save you the trouble. Just look at their list of categories for the L.A. awards on their website. In fact, they told me they created that category specifically for my film. But how is this germane to this discussion? What they do is their business. The proof still stands without the awards or my film.

Todd · 1 August 2006

In fact, when you see the proof in my film yourself,
— Yehuda Freeman

If the proof is so compelling you should open it to scientific scrutiny. As it stands, you are asking us to buy a DVD where we have absolutely no idea what it actually contains, short of your claim that it contains "Proof of G-d", which I assume you mean God. You are not going to get many people here to spend good money on this DVD unless they have some solid evidence it is something that they haven't already dealt with and disproven a thousand times before. Such as some slight clue as to, well anything regarding what this whole deal is about. So far the review puts you off to a bad start, talking about "the missing link" (which one?) and something about the "'big bang' theories that add a few billion years onto themselves every day" (both dead wrong and a strawman since it has nothing to do with evolution). This all hangs on a "one-signed animal", which a google search only termed up your site and some mystery or supsense story. So as far as I can tell you made up the term.

Have you ever wondered why Hassidic sects keep to themselves? According to Lucky Penny Films' latest release "A Sacred Proof," directed by Yehuda Freeman, one reason is that they are guarding mystical secrets about things like world peace, the cures for all deseases, and proofs for mysteries that lie at the root of problematic, scientific axioms that have been confusing mankind for quite some time.

These sorts of statement tend to set off alarm bells in most scientists' heads. There is a long history of these sorts of statements being connected with, quite frankly insane ideas. Having a supposedly biologically-oriented movie where much of the trailer is shots of pool, random places that are not important to the movie, and someone dancing probably doesn't help either. You have an upward struggle to convince people here that your DVD is worth spending $20 on.

which is largely founded upon one of science's greatest false axioms.
— Yehuda Freeman

Which axiom would that be?

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

Heh would you care to bet on that?

No thanks. I'd bet on the proof but not on you.

Wheels · 1 August 2006

Well, my comment to the plugger was eaten in a glitch earlier.
That's bad.
Fortunately I had the forethought to save it as a txt document.
That's good.
Reprinted here:

Yet more challenges to prove/disprove such and such religious issue. What is it with people and these kind of challenges? Who is "our panel of experts?" Why not a neutral mediator agreed to by both parties? Why have this sort of thing decided by some smoky back-room kabal of people connected with the director? How is a statement by an omnipotent being "falsifiable?" Instead of holding this sort of "proof" behind the purchase of a video disk, wouldn't the world at large be better served if you openly distributed this information to make the apparently undeniable fact of the Creator as far-reaching and widely known as possible, rather than attempt to make money off it? If this is a "science documentary," where's the scientific papers and published works? Where's the research? Got any Relics for sale?

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

What the heck is a "one-signed" animal anyway? That's no taxonomic term I'm aware of.

Amazing! How can it be that we live in a world where it's possible to learn something new everyday?

Yehuda Freeman · 1 August 2006

You have an upward struggle to convince people here that your DVD is worth spending $20 on.

No doubt about it. Try making an independent film. As far as making the proof available for scientific scrutiny, it's been around for over 3300 years and it's in Deuteronomy. Darwin never got past "in the beginning . . ." so you can do the research yourselves. I am not forcing anyone to buy my film. I'm just making you aware that it exists and that I've already done the research for you and that my film is the way I have chosen to publish it. And besides, what does a science magazine subsciption cost nowadays? Freedom of choice is a given.

Wheels · 1 August 2006

As far as making the proof available for scientific scrutiny, it's been around for over 3300 years and it's in Deuteronomy.

Passage and verse, please?

Darwin never got past "in the beginning ..."

Yes, I'm sure studying to be become a clergyman will do that to you. [/sarcasm]

...so you can do the research yourselves.

It's rather difficult to do that when you won't give us claims to research in the first place.

GuyeFaux · 1 August 2006

...have offered a $100,000 prize in what they are calling "The Contest of Contests"...

something about refute G-d, blah blah. Sorry, I'm working on Hovind's $250,000 offer, so as you can see I have no time to even consider your piddly $100,000 prize.

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

Hey, Yehuda Freeman! You're missing the real money here. James Randi will pay you $1,000,000 for proof of G-d. You don't even have to provide a vowel!

One million dollars! That's better than selling 50,000 DVDs!

GO FOR IT, MAN!

James Randi Educational Foundation
The Million Dollar Challenge

minimalist · 2 August 2006

And besides, what does a science magazine subsciption cost nowadays?

Journals are as good as free for academics and other people with institutional subscriptions.

Not that a low-budget film is anything comparable to a scientific paper. You ever read one? HEY, maybe you could try to submit one!

Still waiting on an answer to what the heck a "one-signed" animal is.

stevaroni · 2 August 2006

Darwin never got past "in the beginning ..."

Nobody has ever gotten past "In the Beginning..." That's besides the point, because evolution doesn't talk about the beginning. It has the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know, we don't have enough information". On the other hand, science at least tries to investigate these things. Creationism hangs entirely on a 4000 year old conversation between two proto-jewish shepards in a bronze-age cave that went something like... "So, Isaac, where do you think all this (sweeps hand) comes from." "Well, Duh! Ishmael! Obviously God made it. Now we have to kill a sheep and throw it's blood on a fire to make Him happy just in case he heard your stupid blasphemy." "Maybe I should write this down, so dumbasses like you can keep the story straight and we don't have to offer up a sheep to keep the Gods happy whenever you start asking your stupid questions." Sounds like definitive proof to me. Worth at least as much as a couple of filing cabinets of actual hominid fossils, at least.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

Still waiting on an answer to what the heck a "one-signed" animal is.

Well, it may help to define the alternative to "one-signed" animals. "Two-signed" animals will undoubtedly possess the positive animals and the negative animals. And depending on the size limitations, if a positive animal gets too large or a negative animal gets too small, then it will cause and overflow and a positive animal becomes a negative animal and vice versa. I hope that clears up this signed animal business.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

Sounds like definitive proof to me. Worth at least as much as a couple of filing cabinets of actual hominid fossils, at least.

Especially since fossils are the work of the devil, placed there to lure believers away.

William E Emba · 2 August 2006

You're right but I'm not wrong. NYIIFVF screened my film "A Sacred Proof" (my first feature documentary) twice. The first time was in L.A. where it was awarded "Best Science Documentary" and the second was in N.Y. where it won "Best Debut Director-Documentary." I've found that when I tell people about it that it's easier to say "Best Director" which isn't exactly true but it's not a lie either.
— Yehuda Freeman

If a restaurant offered food that was not exactly kosher, but not actually treifus, would you eat there? Speaking for myself, if I have a single qualm about the kashrus of a restaurant, I don't eat there, period. I don't kid myself with doubletalk. I certainly wouldn't brag about it if I did.

On my website (www.asacredproof.com) I've inserted the word "debut" into the award graphic and the fact that it's a documentary speaks for itself. So you've called my bluff but I'm still showing two aces.

You're still a scumbag liar. A shanda fur di goyim. As it is, scientific value is not measured by what nonscientists think of the quality of your filmmaking. No doubt they only went up to the fourth grade in secular studies in your community, so you did not learn this in your formative years. Quite simply, you are not showing two aces. You are showing a complete bust.

fnxtr · 2 August 2006

Anonchicken:

Well, it may help to define the alternative to "one-signed" animals. "Two-signed" animals will undoubtedly possess the positive animals and the negative animals. And depending on the size limitations, if a positive animal gets too large or a negative animal gets too small, then it will cause and overflow and a positive animal becomes a negative animal and vice versa. I hope that clears up this signed animal business.

There's no such thing as a monopole. If opposite signed animals meet, do they attract each other or annihiliate each other?

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

One-signed animals:

http://www.sluggy.com/images/con2000/bellies.htm

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

If opposite signed animals meet, do they attract each other or annihiliate each other?

None. The negative signed animal is subtracted from the positive animal, leaving a gaping hole in the positive animal causing intense pain and death.

k.e. · 2 August 2006

Those unsigned anumils sound either hermaphrodite or gay to me...oops one signed ....oh right ...something to do with Noah signing each one when the ark ran aground in Kansas..OK got it.

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

Hey, Yehuda Freeman! You're missing the real money here. James Randi will pay you $1,000,000 for proof of G-d. You don't even have to provide a vowel!

Randi is offering a million for someone who can prove he has super powers. Go for it! YF

What the heck is a "one-signed" animal anyway?

There are 4 and only 4 animals in creation with one sign: the hare, the badger, the camel, and the pig. Science quiz #1: How does the pig differ from the other 3? YF

You're still a scumbag liar. A shanda fur di goyim.

Correction: Originally I wrote
"My film "A Sacred Proof" recently won "Best Science Doc" and 'Best Director" in the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2006."
This should read:
"My film "A Sacred Proof" recently won "Best Science Doc" and 'Best Debut Director - Documentary" in the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2006.

I stand corrected and I will be happy to meet with Jewish leaders to help me pursue a path of healing. YF

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

There are 4 and only 4 animals in creation with one sign: the hare, the badger, the camel, and the pig. Science quiz #1: How does the pig differ from the other 3? YF

Pseudoscience, to be more exact.

"My film "A Sacred Proof" recently won "Best Science Doc" and 'Best Debut Director - Documentary" in the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival 2006.

Let's assume you're not lying. What credibility does any Film Festival have on judging whether something is: a) science b) correct ? To them, anything that declares itself to be talking about science belongs in the science category. They do not bother checking out the validity or truthfulness of the claims. Being a good director does not equate to being knowledgeable. Film Festivals aren't about content. They're about the creative side of things. Why don't you show the film to REAL scientists and see what they have to say?

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

As it is, scientific value is not measured by what nonscientists think of the quality of your filmmaking. No doubt they only went up to the fourth grade in secular studies in your community, so you did not learn this in your formative years. Quite simply, you are not showing two aces. You are showing a complete bust.

I went to University for seven years and scored 2 degrees. I made my first fortune on Wall St. I've also got Smicha (Rabbinical ordination) from a Misnagid (anti-Hassidic)organization. So according to your standards I've got a full house. YF

Bruce Thompson GQ · 2 August 2006

Yehuda Freeman's site expounds:

"So if you are an atheist, an anti-semite, a scientist, a believer in false gods and false religions, or maybe you can just plain disprove it, this is your chance to put your beliefs or lack of them on the line...

So scientists and by implication biologists who do not deal with ethical issues are grouped with those who do deal with ethical and moral issues.

"Once you come up with your "disproof" send us an email and tells us about it. Our panel of experts will determine if you are correct."

Sounds like Hovind's offer.

"The proof presented in "A Sacred Proof" is considered a falsifiable statement made by the Creator Himself but, to date, no one has been able or even tried to disprove it mainly because very few people are aware of it."

Hovind's offer is better advertised and his videos can be seen for free at many churches. Someone hasn't done their job.

"Nevertheless, the challenge is there and we are prepared to put our faith on the line to the tune of $100,000."

Your faith is only worth $100,000? In today's market, cheap at twice the price. No wonder you believe you can fly on poorly photoshopped carpets. It would seem reasonable that if you were concerned with scientists that you would make your poof freely available to them. Dembski has done this, many of his papers are freely available and have been widely discussed. In the free and open market place of ideas everyone is welcome but don't expect people to pay for the opportunity to hear what you have to say. Sorry, off topic Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

Why don't you show the film to REAL scientists and see what they have to say?

I did show it one real scientist who thought it was great. Where can I find another one? Obviously not on this blog. YF

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

I went to University for seven years and scored 2 degrees. I made my first fortune on Wall St. I've also got Smicha (Rabbinical ordination) from a Misnagid (anti-Hassidic)organization. So according to your standards I've got a full house. YF

Two degrees in what? And which university? Is it a diploma mill? Making a fortune on Wall Street has nothing to do with understanding biology. Your religious education is inconsequential. More importantly, evidence for rejection of facts that disagree with your preconceived notions. According to my standards, you're a fraud.

As it is, scientific value is not measured by what nonscientists think of the quality of your filmmaking. No doubt they only went up to the fourth grade in secular studies in your community, so you did not learn this in your formative years. Quite simply, you are not showing two aces. You are showing a complete bust.

How slow are you? I JUST said that quality of filmmaking is not a measure of scientific value. That is why I suggested you show your film to REAL scientists instead of bragging about your awards at a film festival. Actually, secular education in Australian isn't that bad, despite the serious lack of funding. By the looks of things, a lot of private (religious) school students ended up dropping out of university in the first year.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

I did show it one real scientist who thought it was great. Where can I find another one? Obviously not on this blog. YF

I can safely say that the scientist obviously wasn't a biologist. It may surprise you, but the tactics you use are old school. Argument from Authority has almost no merit. Especially when you decline to list the actual QUALIFICATIONS of the scientist. Maybe even a name and some proof that he had something good to say. Right now, it is just as possible that you showed your film to a "scientist" who got his degree from a diploma mill. Kent Hovind claims scientific knowledge all the time.

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

Hovind's offer is better advertised and his videos can be seen for free at many churches. Someone hasn't done their job.

You're right and in general your criticism has some merit. It's regretable that the film industry has to stoop to marketing ploys to attract attention especially to an issue that is causing American kids to suffer in the quality of their education, which in turn is also causing America to lose it's #1 status as a world leader in education. Had I known about Hovind I might have vetoed the contest. Thanks. YF

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

Randi is offering a million for someone who can prove he has super powers. Go for it! YF
— Yehuda Freeman

The surreal thing is that you seem to feel this is an adequate response. I'm not the one claiming to be able to demonstrate the supernatural. You are. You are thus capable of gaining Randi's million. I am not. I have no superpowers. If I had superpowers, I would be one million dollars richer.

What the heck is a "one-signed" animal anyway?
— Yehuda Freeman
There are 4 and only 4 animals in creation with one sign: the hare, the badger, the camel, and the pig. Science quiz #1: How does the pig differ from the other 3? YF

The pig is the only member of suborder suina. It's the only omnivore. It's largely hairless. It's the most often eaten. I could go on but I'm board. None of this is significant. Each of the others is unique in the set as well. The camel is the only ruminant. The badger the only carnivore. I, personally, have never seen anyone sign any of those animals, so I must conclude they are unsigned.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 2 August 2006

Apologies to all.

Such terrible editing on my part. I left out 2 commas and misspelled a word.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

According to my standards, you're a fraud.

And what are you if the best name you can call yourself is "anonymous coward" - a blog terrorist? You want to know my degrees, the U where I got them, the name of the scientist etc etc. Tell me who you are and what your qualifications are. In fact, tell everyone on this blog if you've got any guts.

William E Emba · 2 August 2006

Still waiting on an answer to what the heck a "one-signed" animal is.

The kosher mammals have two "signs": they chew the cud and split the hoof. The pig, hare, camel, and hyrax have exactly one of the two signs.

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

The pig is the only member of suborder suina. It's the only omnivore. It's largely hairless. It's the most often eaten. I could go on but I'm board. None of this is significant

Very good, Micheal. You may be seated. What your research left out, as boring as it may seem, is that the pig has split-hooves whereas the other 3 don't. The other 3 chew their cud whereas the pig doesn't. All other animals (not birds or fish etc) either have both of these "signs" (the sheep, cow etc) or neither of them (horse, dog etc) Interesting biological fact, no?

fnxtr · 2 August 2006

Unsigned animals:
A horse before the branding.
Anonymous painting of poker-playing dogs.
Eric Burdon before the record contract.

GuyeFaux · 2 August 2006

I wonder if this is the old Jewish-scholar gem, whereby the divinity of God is proved by the fact that pigs are the only animals which does not chew its own cud and does not have a split hoof.

So you're saying you'll fork over 100 G's if we can produce an animal that doesn't chew it's own cud or doesn't have a split hoof?

Steviepinhead · 2 August 2006

Yehuda Freeman:

I could go on but I'm board.

Stiff as a board? Dumb as a post? Numb as a knot? As dense as a sackful of doorknobs? Clarification, please.

k.e. · 2 August 2006

Bwhahhahahahaha

Hare we go again, I'm starting to get this now.

Complete nutcase shows up with INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that the imagined history of the Jewish people SOMEHOW has relevance to modern science and throws down the gauntlet, with such howlers as the Hare chews its cud.

Only an ignorant city boy, who wouldn't know a hare from a harpoon even if a whole tribe of them jumped out from behind a hare tree hotel and viciously attacked his neck with their incredibly sharp fangs...as hares are want to do on certain days of the week..could actually reveal his whole knowledge of the animal kingdom began and ended with the wall paper of his nursery.

Lucky for us our Camel expert is now going to enlighten us all on other fascinating 'scientific' ...er facts.

I gleefully await...the snapping of hare traps.

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

You do like me! Thanks guys. Keep the buzz going and if any of you want to be in my next film (tentatively called "Sarcasm and the Sacred Pig") send me an email thru www.asacredproof.com but you will stand a better chance, of course, if you buy my other films.

AC · 2 August 2006

All other animals (not birds or fish etc)....
— Yehuda Freeman

So, not all of them.

Interesting biological fact, no?

Indeed. And 2 is the only even prime number. Interesting mathematical fact, no?

Bruce Thompson GQ · 2 August 2006

.... but you will stand a better chance, of course, if you buy my other films.

First it was Denyse "buy my book" O'Leary, now joined by Yehuda "buy my film" Freeman. Do apologists have anything of substance they share with mankind? Or are they just another facet of the market driven economy with their own brand name and merchandise line. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Todd · 2 August 2006

There are 4 and only 4 animals in creation with one sign: the hare, the badger, the camel, and the pig. Science quiz #1: How does the pig differ from the other 3? YF
— Yehuda Freeman

Very good, Micheal. You may be seated. What your research left out, as boring as it may seem, is that the pig has split-hooves whereas the other 3 don't. The other 3 chew their cud whereas the pig doesn't. All other animals (not birds or fish etc) either have both of these "signs" (the sheep, cow etc) or neither of them (horse, dog etc) Interesting biological fact, no?
— Yehuda Freeman

WOW Where to begin with this. First, badgers don't chew cud. Cud is partially digested plant-matter. Badgers are members of the weasel family, they eat meat. It is not possible for them to chew cud since they don't eat plants. The purpose of chewing cud is to better allow bacteria to break down celluluse into usable sugars. Cellulose is only found in plants (and some fungi), so a carnivore that eats meet has no need for this. Rabbits also do not chew their cud. Camels DO have split hooves. Take a look at a picture of a camel's foot (such as This One). So yes, pigs have split hooves and don't chew their cud. But two of the other 4 don't chew cud and the fourth does have split hooves. So there is actually only one one-signed animal according to your list. But wait, there's more! You say the pig has split hooves but doesn't chew it's cud. There are three main sub-orders of the order Artiodactyla (even-hoofed mammals). One is the Ruminates, which chew their cud, and another is the suborder Tylopoda, which includes camels (which are on your list as not having split hooves but as I have shown actually does). The third is the suborder Suina, which don't chew their cud and include pigs, which was on your list as not chewing cud but having split hooves, but also includes hippopotamus, which have split hooves and do not chew their cud, and peccaries, which also have split hooves but do not chew their cud. So that is 3 so far. But there is yet more. The odd-toed ungulates, members of the order Perissodactyla, never chew their cud. This includes horses and their relatives, which do not have split hooves. However, it also includes the Tapir, which does have split hooves, and the various species of Rhinocerous which also have split hooves. Neither of these chew their cud. So I have shown now shown 5 types of animals (more if you divide by genus or species instead of family), 4 of which were not on your original list, that do have split hooves but do not chew their cud. So I have shown 5 animals that are one-signed. I win! When will you be mailing the check?

Henry J · 2 August 2006

Re "if a whole tribe of them jumped out from behind a hare tree hotel and viciously attacked his neck with their incredibly sharp fangs... as hares are want to do on certain days of the week.."

Uh oh. What with all the wabbits living on the grounds of the apts. where I live, that could be a hare-y situation...

Henry

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

The pig is the only member of suborder suina. It's the only omnivore. It's largely hairless. It's the most often eaten. I could go on but I'm board.(sic) None of this is significant.
— Yehuda Freeman
Very good, Micheal. You may be seated.

Oh, may I? Oh, joy! My feet were getting so tired standing here waiting for you to give me permission to sit.

What your research left out, as boring as it may seem, is that the pig has split-hooves whereas the other 3 don't. The other 3 chew their cud whereas the pig doesn't.
— Yehuda Freeman

They don't, you know. First of all, you said "badger". Badgers don't even eat plants, much less chew cud. Second of all, just imagine how much smoother and faster this conversation could have gone if you had just ANSWERED the question when it was asked to begin with instead of acting like a cheeky little git. I know you're thrilled with yourself, but the rest of us... not so much with the thrilled with you.

All other animals (not birds or fish etc) either have both of these "signs" (the sheep, cow etc) or neither of them (horse, dog etc)
— Yehuda Freeman

Birds and fish are animals. So are invertebrates. Termites also "chew their cud" at least as much as rabbits do (that is, they don't, but they will eat their own excrement).

Interesting biological fact, no?
— Yehuda Freeman

No. Interesting facts would elicit... interest. For instance, Ammonites are identical to nautilus in terms of fossil sorting issues (as claimed by creationism), but ended up being sorted into the fossil record very differently. Actually, i guess that's not all that interesting (though I find cephalopods fascinating), since I can't get any creationists interested in explaining it...

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 August 2006

First it was Denyse "buy my book" O'Leary, now joined by Yehuda "buy my film" Freeman. Do apologists have anything of substance they share with mankind? Or are they just another facet of the market driven economy with their own brand name and merchandise line.
— Bruce Thompson GQ

I can answer this! Buy a subscription to my webcast to completely understand how materialism has corrupted our society!

Yehuda Freeman · 2 August 2006

OK Against my will (because I really need to make back my investment in my film and the profits have been pledged to a worthy cause) I'll take you a step further into the proof. At this point you are now aware that there are only 4 one-signed animals in creation. Does anybody know how many animals or categories of animals have been discovered by scientists to date?

stevaroni · 2 August 2006

just imagine how much smoother and faster this conversation could have gone if you had just ANSWERED the question when it was asked to begin with instead of acting like a cheeky little git.

He's got a point. The first rule of being a smartass - be right. Otherwise,the smarmy smile on your face after you think you made make your point doesn't look so intelligent.

Coin · 2 August 2006

At this point you are now aware that there are only 4 one-signed animals in creation.
— Yehuda Freeman

I for one am still generally unaware of what this even means. There do seem to be a couple of people in here who have deciphered your code and know what a "one-signed animal" is, and they don't seem to agree with your assessment that there are exactly four. So is a one-signed animal the opposite of a 2's compliment animal, or what?

Kevin from nyc · 2 August 2006

ow ow wo we really need Carol Clauser to argue with this guy....that would be fun!

also remember its not

"Now we have to kill a sheep and throw it's blood on a fire to make Him happy just in case he heard your stupid blasphemy"

Its" "we need a good meal so let's get Dave to sacrifice his lamb for the greater good of the community...and then chow down at the temple..."

Bruce Thompson GQ · 2 August 2006

Now we're back to biblical "kinds" or a discussion of species. Where's John Wilkins? If we're going to have a discussion on the species concept he should participate in this discussion since the number of categories of animals is highly dependent upon this definition.

I think that rudimentary observations of animal behavior and correlations with external foot morphology might be of interest to early populations but these attempts at taxonomy clearly had their shortcomings as recorded in Deuteronomy, see Deut. 14 verse 18. KJV. The classic grouping of bats with birds based on external morphology demonstrates poor observational skills with regards to some organisms. While apologists have attempted to clarify this, trying to draw scientific conclusions today about the natural world based on poor observations several thousand years ago demonstrates a denial of the accomplishments of much of humanity since.

Freeman says 4, Todd says more. Who to believe?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Sir_Toejam · 2 August 2006

Why don't you show the film to REAL scientists and see what they have to say? I did show it one real scientist who thought it was great. Where can I find another one? Obviously not on this blog. YF

this suggests you should go back to where you obtained your "degrees", and find some real scientists there. why waste your time with any scientists that actually publish research in the biology literature? you want the likes of Dembski and Nelson, who publish nothing but pop culture trivia books and call them science. go over to Uncommon Descent and peddle your wares there.

Todd · 2 August 2006

At this point you are now aware that there are only 4 one-signed animals in creation.
— Yehuda Freeman

Are you kidding me? Read my post above. I showed you 4 one-signed animals that were not on your list and showed that 3 of the ones that were on your list are not one-signed at all. That is 5 one-signed animals at least, 8 if you count your initial list as correct, and many more if you count them by genus instead of family.

Anonymous_Coward · 2 August 2006

And what are you if the best name you can call yourself is "anonymous coward" - a blog terrorist?

Get with the times, genius. It's just a generic username. It's the default name you get when you post on Slashdot without logging in.

You want to know my degrees, the U where I got them, the name of the scientist etc etc. Tell me who you are and what your qualifications are. In fact, tell everyone on this blog if you've got any guts.

Okay. I am a 3rd year Software Engineering student at Curtin University in Western Australia. Most importantly, Curtin University is an ACCREDITED university. It's legit. In Aussieland, it is illegal to falsely name an institution a university without government approval. I have ABSOLUTELY no qualifications to discuss biology. But the fact that even someone as lowly as I can spot your ignorance in the subject, given my limited knowledge, it must mean this whole thing is really out of your league. Come on. Tell US what YOUR degrees are and WHERE you got them from. Tell us this very conveniently invented scientist you showed this to. (I have a feeling Yehuda Freeman won't be posting here anymore, but I could be wrong). I also have a confession to make. I am an anti-Semite. But not just any of your runofthemill anti-Semite. As of this thread, I am specifically anti-Semitic to Yehuda Freeman only. Which in the end, has nothing to do with semitism other than the fact that YF is a semite.

Anton Mates · 3 August 2006

There's only one animal in existence which rolls into a ball and eats insects and has scales and hair and walks around bipedally, sort of like an adorable mini-T-rex. And it's the pangolin. Therefore, Odin exists.

There's more than one species of pangolin, you say? Consider this: Shut up.

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

Pangolin? I thought those were human warrior/priests?

no, really, pangolins are very cool. how can you not like something that looks like a mythological dragon crossed with an anteater?

now if it only breathed fire...

GuyeFaux · 3 August 2006

Speaking of Jewish appologetics, how is the pi=3 thing generally explained away? Rounding error?

Anonymous_Coward · 3 August 2006

Speaking of Jewish appologetics, how is the pi=3 thing generally explained away? Rounding error?

Some apologetics from Jews, Christians and Muslims that I've read goes along the lines of "near enough is good enough". The generic answer for a lot of things is "the people of the time weren't sophisticated, so God didn't need to give exact answers". Strangely, I've had that thrown at me by someone who also insists that the Bible is literally true and thus scientifically accurate...

Carol Clouser · 3 August 2006

Folks,

Yehuda Freeman is peddling an old discredited canard pushed by some extremist outreach Jewish groups in their attempts to prove the existance of God and the divinity of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Unfortunately these people are deficient in knowledge of both the Bible and the Science.

The supposed "proof" goes somewhat as follows. The Bible lists four kinds of "species" (I use the term loosely) that a Jew may not eat because they contain only one of the two "signs" required to render a creature's meat permissible. Since these are the only four species with only one sign (either split hooves or chewing of cud) ever found on earth in the course of thousands of years of observation, only the creator with intimate knowledge of all that exists on earth could possibly have dared to make such a catagorical statement thousands of years ago without fear of contradiction.

This analysis is tenuously based on statements made by the Talmudists in tractate Chulin.

But, as Todd was first to point out, the analysis fails on both counts. Not all four listed species have only one sign and many others exist that DO have only one sign.

Truth be told, however, we cannot be certain of the correct translation of two of the four listed species, namely ARNEVET (hare?) and SHAFAN (badger?). The other two translations are more firmly grounded, GAMAL (camel) and CHAZEER (swine) are used quite frequently in the Hebrew Bible with well established meanings. The Bible also does not at all claim that the listed four are the only four such species. They are listed merely as examples of "one signed" species. Additionally, if ARNEVET and SHAFAN represent the hare and badger, we arrive at the interesting question as to why the writer of the Bible (however divinely inspired he may have been) and the ancients who read the document did not know that hares and badgers do not chew their cud. This in turn argues in favor of the idea that these rarely used Hebrew terms do not represent the hare and Badger.

In any event I declare Todd the winner of $100,000 payable by Yehuda Freeman. All I ask, Todd, is that you share some of your winnings with me (after taxes, of course).

Popper's ghost · 3 August 2006

All I ask, Todd, is that you share some of your winnings with me (after taxes, of course).

Even when you're trying to be funny you're a pathetic troll jackass.

Darth Robo · 3 August 2006

Kevin from nyc said:

"we really need Carol Clauser to argue with this guy....that would be fun!"

Ask, and thou shalt receive! Is this proof of God? ;)

Sounder · 3 August 2006

Even when you're trying to be funny you're a pathetic troll jackass.

Look who's talking. I actually found her post oddly educational.

Sounder · 3 August 2006

Oh yeah, syntax...

k.e. · 3 August 2006

Hey Anon ...go the box....snicker.
Snap .....we live in the same town.

Michael Suttkus, II · 3 August 2006

OK Against my will (because I really need to make back my investment in my film and the profits have been pledged to a worthy cause) I'll take you a step further into the proof. At this point you are now aware that there are only 4 one-signed animals in creation. Does anybody know how many animals or categories of animals have been discovered by scientists to date?
— Yehuda Freeman

Translation: Yehuda will not learn his lesson and will continue to warble around hoping somebody cares. Yehuda, is it too much to ask that you just STATE YOUR BLOODY ARGUMENT ALREADY? We have no interest in sitting around here raising our hands and energetically answering your irrelevant questions like excited students. You are not our teacher and at this rate you aren't even going to be a debator. State your point and be done with it! Is this too much for you? Yes, I know you would rather live in a fantasy where you're imparting wisdom from on high, but, honestly, the real world isn't like that and nobody thinks you're all that wise. Further, we have no chance of thinking of you as wise UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY TELL US WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Get over yourself. Quickly.

There's only one animal in existence which rolls into a ball and eats insects and has scales and hair and walks around bipedally, sort of like an adorable mini-T-rex. And it's the pangolin.
— Anton Mates

I'm not aware pangolins ever walked bipedally. Given their rather top-heavy construction and elongated body, I consider this somewhat unlikely. I'm willing to be wrong, though.

Therefore, Odin exists.
— Anton Mates

HERETIC! Pangolins prove the existance of the Zeus!

Speaking of Jewish appologetics, how is the pi=3 thing generally explained away? Rounding error?
— GuyeFaux

See, THAT part isn't meant literally. But Genesis is! REALLY! Well, not the parts about windows in a solid sky, but other parts of Genesis are literal. You can tell which parts of Genesis were originally intended to be literal by which ones creationists now defend! Creationists don't defend the flat earth or metal sky with windows, so despite the fact that the original authors of Genesis believed those things, they weren't being literal when they wrote them. Creationists have a special Green-Letter Bible which highlights all the passages that are absolutely literally correct and not the ones that are obviously metaphors (like thought occuring in the heart, another thing believed absolutely literally by the authors, now regarded as metaphor). Copies of the Green-Letter Bible are kinda hard to come by, but it must exist... I have faith!

The supposed "proof" goes somewhat as follows. The Bible lists four kinds of "species" (I use the term loosely) that a Jew may not eat because they contain only one of the two "signs" required to render a creature's meat permissible.
— Carol Clouser

Funny, if it had mentioned the Babirusa, it could have saved a ton of confusion about whether it was okay to eat or nto. Guess God forgot another one-signed animal. I guess that's a 1.9-signed animal in this case! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babirusa

Since these are the only four species with only one sign (either split hooves or chewing of cud) ever found on earth in the course of thousands of years of observation, only the creator with intimate knowledge of all that exists on earth could possibly have dared to make such a catagorical statement thousands of years ago without fear of contradiction.
— Carol Clouser

Who says they feared contradiction? Besides, ancient Greek writings refer to turtles as being the only animals with shells of bone, AND THEY ARE! This shows that ancient Greek texts were inspired by Zeus and are inerrant.

In any event I declare Todd the winner of $100,000 payable by Yehuda Freeman. All I ask, Todd, is that you share some of your winnings with me (after taxes, of course).
— Carol Clouser

HEY! I brought up termites! I deserve at least a hundred of that! Honestly, though, as Bible based predictions go, that seems extremely weak. I mean, I thought creationist claims that the Bible predicted evaporation (and that scientists tried to deny it for centuries, no less) were weak but this brings whole new meaning to the concept of a weak argument. But, we notice, it is not Yehuda who finally explained Yehuda's argument. He's too thrilled with himself, we had to get someone else to do it. Poor Yehuda. Now we can't be thrilled with himself with him. He's too slow.

k.e. · 3 August 2006

Henry said:

What with all the wabbits living on the grounds of the apts. where I live, that could be a hare-y situation...

I've never liked smart arsed city, latte drinking, Chardonnay swilling, apt. dwelling wabbits :>

We might have to call in that cloven hoofed porcine wabbit extwerminator... whats his name..to deal with the latest cartoon creationist YF.

Oh yeah.... Carol (I'm a Jewish literal Torah reading Physicist...trust me) Clouser, could do a passable jobe...where's dat wrascally YF.

stavaroni · 3 August 2006

Popper said Even when you're trying to be funny you're a pathetic troll jackass.

Popper - You're being needlessly snide! Even though I disagree often with Carol over the content of her arguments, in this case she has quickly and cleanly cut through Yehuda's Demnski-esque BS and defined the deal in in simple english. And seen in such a light, Yehuda is simply full of it, as we have suspected. We just couldn't figure out what he was full of, since he wouldn't tell us what the hell he was talking about because he wanted to sell his movie. So thanks Carol. I may not agree with you, but it's nice to debate at an adult level

Anton Mates · 3 August 2006

A bit of information that might be helpful: The KJV translates that particular animal as "rock-badger," and as William Emba mentions, it's commonly thought to be the rock hyrax. Hyraxes don't chew cud either, but they are herbivorous and have been observed making repetitive chewing motions, so like rabbits it would be fairly easy to mistake them for cud-chewers. Hyraxes also have a multi-chambered digestive system (though not as complex as ruminants'), so conceivably some sharp-eyed ancient could have noticed that while butchering one and jumped to conclusions. Many Biblical literalists prefer alternate translations for the Hebrew bit commonly translated as "chew the cud," such that it means some more general class of behavior that ruminants, rabbits and hyraxes all shared (like passing food from one chamber to another for processing, or some such.) To my very limited knowledge most scholars find these alternate translations implausible; in any event they don't help Yehuda since there's pretty much no way to translate it such that only those animals would qualify. But the identification of that animal as an actual badger badger is AFAIK Yehuda's special brand of silliness, not a general fundie thing.

I'm not aware pangolins ever walked bipedally. Given their rather top-heavy construction and elongated body, I consider this somewhat unlikely. I'm willing to be wrong, though.
— Michael Suttkus, II

Check out the insectivore episode of "Life of Mammals;" you can actually see a giant pangolin walking around that way. It's awesome. The key is the very long and heavy tail--sticking it out behind, the pangolin can walk on its hind legs with its body leaning forward until it's almost horizontal (like a T-Rex). According to the show, at least, this is a means of protecting their foreclaws from wear so they'll be better for digging. I accept this, since David Attenborough is a known source of revealed divine truth (well, except when they put hyenas in the "Dogs" part of the show instead of the "Cats" part, but that's probably not his fault.)

Michael Suttkus, II · 3 August 2006

Why didn't you say, "David Attenborough says they are bipedal" in the first place! I wouldn't have bothered arguing if you had said it was from David Attenborough! How could anyone argue with that voice! :-)

Not that I needed an excuse to go watch Life of Mammals again, but I appreciate getting one!

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Hey I'm back. How do you get those boxes to appear around the blog you want to address. Remenmber I'm a little slow and this is my first blogging experience.

Steviepinhead · 3 August 2006

Yehuda:

Remenmber I'm a little slow

Ah, good, that probably explains the "board" phraseology that confused me earlier. More seriously, you deploy pairs of angle-brackets, thusly (except I'm going to use pairs of so-called "square" brackets to avoid confusing the system): [][]. Using copy-and-past, you insert whatever text you want to "tag" with bold, italic,

"box"-quote

, or whatever, between the paired brackets. Then, within the opening pair of brackets, you insert the "code" for the tag you wish to apply: b for bold, i for italic, the word "quote" to get the box or block-quoteetc. Same code goes in the closing pair of brackets, but with a preceding slash: /. As with international street signage, the / kinda counters the accompanying code, as in end-bold, un-italic, stop-quote. Now, how about addressing all those incorrect attributions of anatomical and behaviorial characteristics that you seem to have made, or overlooked entirely?

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Carol Wrote:
This in turn argues in favor of the idea that these rarely used Hebrew terms do not represent the hare and Badger.
In any event I declare Todd the winner of $100,000 payable by Yehuda Freeman. All I ask, Todd, is that you share some of your winnings with me (after taxes, of course).
-------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the delay but I've been fasting and praying on this, the worst day in Jewish history.
Todd failed to meet the one requirement of the contest. He did not buy a DVD. Also when you told me about Hovind I alerted my film company who immediately suspended the contest until further notice. Not because the proof is refutable but because contests associated with this issue seem undignified. And Carol, I'm going to check out Tractate Chulin. Thanks.

Steviepinhead · 3 August 2006

While I can understand and sympathize with your surrender to hyperbole, and while I have no doubt that the past days and weeks have been horrific for those innocents on either side of the border who have been injured or killed, or had their homes or businesses collapsed around them, or who have lost loved ones, to call this day of all days "the worst day in Jewish history" would still seem to be questionable in the extreme, and extremely poor taste.

Without even going back to the biblical era or "historical" times (a catastrophic flood, slavery in Egypt, wandering in the desert, captivity in Babylon, various dust-ups with the other regional ethnic and religious groups, destruction of the temple, those fractious Romans, the diaspora, repeated waves of pogroms and persecution), I would think the recent history of, oh, Krystalnacht, the Holocaust, the various wars and reprisals preceding the formation of Israel, and the various wars, reprisals, bombings, assassinations, Olympic massacres, and intifadahs that have followed (even 9/11, in which many Jews perished), would make one hesitate to single out any one day in this long and grievous list.

stevaroni · 3 August 2006

Sorry for the delay but I've been fasting and praying on this, the worst day in Jewish history.

Wow. I would have assumed that the worst day in Jewish history would have been the fall of the second temple, or maybe the storming of Masada. Perhaps krystalnacht (sp?) the unnofficial kickoff event of the the Holocaust, or maybe the publication of one of the Catholic churches more dramatic edicts against Judaism. As far as current events go, I wouldn't think it even rates in the top 10. A mess, true, but all in all, the Jews seem to holding their own.

Steviepinhead · 3 August 2006

...not to mention the questionable taste of using the all-too-real tragedy now playing out in the Levant as an excuse for your inability to defend your silly and fanciful assertions here.

stevearoni · 3 August 2006

Hey! No fair Stevepinhead!

I was going to make the obscure Krystalnacht reference first, I even had it typed in, but I couldn't get Degas to take the post!

Matt · 3 August 2006

...because contests associated with this issue seem undignified.
— Yehuda Freeman

It took learning about Hovind's contest for you to figure this out?

Todd · 3 August 2006

Todd failed to meet the one requirement of the contest. He did not buy a DVD. Also when you told me about Hovind I alerted my film company who immediately suspended the contest until further notice. Not because the proof is refutable but because contests associated with this issue seem undignified. And Carol, I'm going to check out Tractate Chulin. Thanks.
— Yehuda Freeman

Notice how Freeman has conveniently side-stepped the issue of whether I was actually right. By focusing on the issue of the contest he has managed to completely avoid dealing with the truthfulness of his claims. I won't let it slide quite that easily. Freeman, either admit that your "proof" is wrong or show exactly how my refutation of your proof is wrong. You made a claim. The claim has been countered. Now you must deal with the counter or cede the issue.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 3 August 2006

Todd failed to meet the one requirement of the contest. He did not buy a DVD. Also when you told me about Hovind I alerted my film company who immediately suspended the contest until further notice.

Your film company is sponsoring the contest? I thought it was your group who was sponsoring the award. It is your faith that you placed on the line, not your film companies faith. Hovind doesn't argue about the existence of the creator only about evolution. You offer biological proof of a creator a different matter entirely. Yes it was stipulate that the contestant buy the video so Todd is not entitled to the $100,000, but the data has been submitted and he deserves a reasoned response from your committee. It would be interesting to hear their discussion (not yours) of his analysis. You will find all the Kwick code information here. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Nick ((Matzke)) · 3 August 2006

On pangolin bipedality:

I accept this, since David Attenborough is a known source of revealed divine truth

LOL. True enough...

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Wow. I would have assumed that the worst day in Jewish history would have been the fall of the second temple
--------------------------------------------------

Today is the anniversary of the fall of the second Temple as well as the first Temple centuries before. Both were destroyed on the same day. It is called Tisha B'Av which means the ninth day in the Hebrew lunar month of Av. There's are other major tragedies associated with it but I'm too weak from fasting to elaborate. It is also believed to be the day Moshiach (the Messiah) will be born.

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

Ask, and thou shalt receive! Is this proof of God? ;)

no, it's proof that Carol has a filter set up on this blog to catch any time her name is mentioned. appropriate for one so concerned about herself, rather than any particular general subject. Hey Carol! Saved any zebras lately?

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Freeman, either admit that your "proof" is wrong or show exactly how my refutation of your proof is wrong. You made a claim. The claim has been countered. Now you must deal with the counter or cede the issue.
-------------------------------------------------

I'm not avoiding you. Whether you are right or wrong hinges on what Carol said about "my" proof being discredited in the sense that the Torah is only citing 4 categories of one-signed animals of which there are others not just 4. When I was taught this proof it was in a lecture called "Four proofs for the existence of G-d" in which the lecturer stated this proof as if the Torah was saying there are 4 and only 4 one-signed animals in creation. Either the lecturer didn't know that this had been discredited or maybe it really hasn't been discredited according to Torah scholars but only according to science. If she is right then there could be countless one signed animals and it's no proof. So that would make you right, too. So I have to go to my "panel of experts" and find out if the proof has been discredited. I also have to look up what it says in Chulin which I can't do until tomorrow afternoon because of certain stingencies associated with the 9th of Av.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

It took learning about Hovind's contest for you to figure this out?
-------------------------------------------------
Ya I'm slow and since my film just came out there's obviously a lot to learn about marketing it. It does have a few redeeming features, however, like original music, cool graphics, and interesting people, you know, production value stuff, as well as as "The Greatest Pool Shot of all time" as an added bonus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePno_jvc_Bw). Maybe you guys have an idea for a film? I'm an award winner so I can help.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 3 August 2006

From the French we have these important facts for the pangophiles on this thread including their upright stance. Especially important is information concerning nocturnal pangolin attacks on humans.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Darth Robo · 3 August 2006

Sir_Toejam said:

"no, it's proof that Carol has a filter set up on this blog to catch any time her name is mentioned.

appropriate for one so concerned about herself, rather than any particular general subject.

Hey Carol!

Saved any zebras lately?"

Now THAT was funny! :)

Yehuda Freeman said:

"So I have to go to my "panel of experts" and find out if the proof has been discredited."

Whoops, that may just kinda screw up that 'documentary' part of your film, huh? Glad you put your "panel of experts" in quotation marks, though.

But hey, "It does have a few redeeming features, however, like original music, cool graphics, and interesting people, you know, production value stuff, as well as as "The Greatest Pool Shot of all time" "

Maybe it could also be added to the "3 hour challenge"?

"Maybe you guys have an idea for a film? I'm an award winner so I can help."

Wow, this guy is unbelievable.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Wow, this guy is unbelievable
----------------------------------------
Thanks for the compliment. So is G-d according to some sciences.

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

Thanks for the compliment. So is G-d according to some sciences.

wacky, man. which sciences would those be, exactly?

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

Now THAT was funny! :)

glad to see you remember that one. Carol's position on the cruelty of animals was one of the more amusing discussions I've ever had with her on PT, and pretty much solidified her position as crankiest poster on PT.

Darth Robo · 3 August 2006

You're assuming it WAS a compliment (and why did I have the feeling you were gonna say something like that?). As for the sciences that say something about spiritual beliefs, which ones are those?

Carol Clouser · 3 August 2006

Yehuda Freeman,

Whether or not I am right, you have already lost. YOU claimed to have proof of the existance of God. So the burden of proof IS ON YOU. Not only has your proof been destroyed, you are lucky if you walk away from this discussion without it proving the opposite - that the Bible cannot be divinely inspired. You do so only by the skin of your teeth, based on the proposition that it may not be clear what ARNEVET and SHAFAN mean. And we still have the issue raised by Todd that camels (GAMAL) DO have split hooves, in direct contradiction of what the Bible states. Although I must add that find it hard to accept that the ancient desert wanderers did not know much about the hooves of the camels they were riding.

In any event you are ignorant of both, Torah and Science. The nonsense you peddle and the tactics you employ actually serve to discredit the Torah, rather than impress people with its wisdom and beauty. Your using today's fast as an excuse is also disgraceful. I too fasted (still am, till sundown) and have not lost my bearings yet. You are a rank amatuer with the chutzpah to pose as an expert. For shame!

Darth Robo · 3 August 2006

"glad to see you remember that one."

OH BOY, yeah. I remember!

stevaroni · 3 August 2006

Today is the anniversary of the fall of the second Temple as well as the first Temple centuries before. Both were destroyed on the same day. It is called Tisha B'Av which means the ninth day in the Hebrew lunar month of Av. There's are other major tragedies associated with it

Well, I stand corrected. If there were in fact, a sequence of really bad Jewish-centric things that happened on this date, and you were fasting in observation, then I apologize and retract my smart-assed comments fully.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

You are a rank amatuer with the chutzpah to pose as an expert. For shame!
-------------------------------------------------
Up until this I sort of thought you had something to say. This is just plain bully broad dirty pool, totally unnecessary and uncalled for. Where did I say I was an expert? Give me a little time and we'll see what you really said. For all I know it could be complete BS.

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

You are a rank amatuer with the chutzpah to pose as an expert. For shame!

ROFL. pot-kettle-black.

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

Carol, are you upset because YF is muscling in on your territory as our resident crank on all things Jewish?

Don't be. I suspect he will get bored of us soon.

H. Humbert · 3 August 2006

When I was taught this proof it was in a lecture called "Four proofs for the existence of G-d" in which the lecturer stated this proof as if the Torah was saying there are 4 and only 4 one-signed animals in creation. Either the lecturer didn't know that this had been discredited or maybe it really hasn't been discredited according to Torah scholars but only according to science.

Discredited by scientists but not accepted by Torah scholars? Yeah, that's called being in denial, and it very common among the faithful of all stripes. "Proofs" like this one always end up being tautologies. God claimed in the Torah there are only 4 one-signed animals, therefore the Torah is proved correct. How do we know there are only 4 one-signed animals in exstence? Because god named them for us in the Torah.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

OK Carol, here's a taste of what you're up against. "Devarim 14:6 Rashi - cloven hoofs - hooves divided into two nails, for there are animals with hoofs NOT ENTIRELY divided into two nails."
Could this mean the camel?

CJ O'Brien · 3 August 2006

OK.
I've just been told that a scientific proof for the existence of G-d rests, in part, on the premise that BADGERS chew cud.

I might just be done with this here culture war. I think we won. Everyone go home now, and I'll see you at the reunion.

Steviepinhead · 3 August 2006

Sir_Toejam, in reference to Yehuda:

I suspect he will get bored of us soon.

Nah, if my theory is correct, he'll get board of us quite soon. But it now appears critical to the discussion, Sir Toe, that you let us know whether yours are even or odd, split "entirely" or only partially, and like that... And, do we really want to delve, ahem, too deeply into whether or not a "camel toe" involves a split? On this, our family-friendly science blog?

Sir_Toejam · 3 August 2006

But it now appears critical to the discussion, Sir Toe, that you let us know whether yours are even or odd, split "entirely" or only partially, and like that...

oh, sorry, of course. I missed the obvious relevancy earlier. webbed.

Steviepinhead · 3 August 2006

Ha! You quack me up!

Bruce Thompson GQ · 3 August 2006

The web site has changed. If anyone else scanned the scared proof web site last night they will now notice the award is now missing, how Dembski like... It now purports to use the scientific method in some fashion resulting in the proof. The required proof is now spelled out on the "reviews" page, finding the 5th one-signed animal. It then goes on about the missing link, the big bang, and false axioms.

Oh, I'd modify the seizure inducing graphics on the "FEEDBACK" page, please slow down the speed.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Carol Clouser · 3 August 2006

"OK Carol, here's a taste of what you're up against. Devarim 14:6 Rashi - cloven hoofs - hooves divided into two nails, for there are animals with hoofs NOT ENTIRELY divided into two nails. Could this mean the camel?"

YOU are the one with the "proof", right, and now you ask me questions? You should have thought about these questions BEFORE making grandiose claims and offering $100,000 challenges.
Give it up! You owe Todd a lot of dough.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

YOU are the one with the "proof", right, and now you ask me questions?
-----------------------------------------------
It wasn't a question it was a statement that the camel's hoofs are not entirely split. Thus 2 of the 4 stand on their own split or partially split hoofs. Besides, it's not "my" proof. I just made a film about something that's been around for a long time. But whatever, in Masechta Tamid there's a piece about Alexander the Great and the Amazons. So perhaps it would be wise to follow their example.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

You should have thought about these questions BEFORE making grandiose claims and offering $100,000 challenges.
----------------------------------------------
No question about it. If you want to save me a lot of time just tell me where I can learn about the proof being discredited and where in Chulin it's discussed. Quite honestly I never expected my blog would even get placed on this one and I had no idea that blogging was about being a piece of shark bait. But all in all it's been a lot of fun and very enlightening.

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Give it up! You owe Todd a lot of dough
----------------------------------------
Give what up? Todd failed to enter a contest that no longer exists thanks to this blog. (See previous comments)

Yehuda Freeman · 3 August 2006

Anyway folks,
I get the impression you're getting board er bored of me so I'll leave you with another one of the "Four Proofs for the Existence of G-d." This one, though briefly mentioned in my film, is not biological unless you want to consider human beings as biological entities. It goes like this:
"3,000,000 Jewish men, women, and children witnessed G-d giving the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai some 3300 years ago. Since then, and despite all adversity, the Jews have kept the commandments and preserved the Torah exactly as it was given."
That's it and there's no need to get into who has tried to refute or obliterate every aspect of this "proof" throughout history even to this day. So thanks for everything.
PS If you have a chance check out the work of Vendyl Jones.

Kevin from nyc · 3 August 2006

WEEE! I was very right that Carol Clauser would give this guy the heave-ho. The depth of her insanity is way deeper than that patzer.

Carol I thought your post was logical and efficient....sort of my scribbles on paper beat your scribbles on paper in its simplicity.

thanks

kfnyc
(I used your full hame so it would show up in the filter)

Anton Mates · 3 August 2006

OK Carol, here's a taste of what you're up against. "Devarim 14:6 Rashi - cloven hoofs - hooves divided into two nails, for there are animals with hoofs NOT ENTIRELY divided into two nails." Could this mean the camel?
— Yehuda Freeman

No. Chrissakes, man, you thought you had a proof of the existence of God and you didn't even bother to go to the zoo and check? I mean, most people would know the badger thing simply from reading The Wind in the Willows when they were a kid. Or hell, watching the movie. (I'd be far more willing to believe that the camel was disqualified because it doesn't really look like it has hooves at all, as they're largely skin-covered. Like Carol, I find it hard to believe the writers of Deuteronomy weren't intimately familiar with camels.) Oh, and there's a gazillion more cud-chewing animals without split hooves in the kangaroo family.

Carol Clouser · 3 August 2006

Kevin,

"(I used your full hame so it would show up in the filter)"

Well, there is no filter and if there were it wouldn't show up since you persist in mispelling my name. But thanks anyway.

Todd · 3 August 2006

It wasn't a question it was a statement that the camel's hoofs are not entirely split.
—

That is beside the point. I have shown 5 one-signed animals that are not on your list. Your demand was to show one. I more than met your criteria. I may not win the money since you cancelled the offer as soon as it seemed it might be won, but that doesn't change the fact that I have successfully refuted your proof.

3,000,000 Jewish men, women, and children witnessed G-d giving the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai some 3300 years ago. Since then, and despite all adversity, the Jews have kept the commandments and preserved the Torah exactly as it was given."
— Yehuda Freeman

That is nice. The Hingu Vedas have existed in written form for hundreds of years longer than that, and Australian Aborigines appear to have had their religion establishes several thousand years before that, possibly far longer. By your logic this should be proof of Brahman or Dreamtime, yet these ideas are mutually exclusive with your concept of G-d and each other. How do you decide which are correct?

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

Popper - You're being needlessly snide! Even though I disagree often with Carol over the content of her arguments, in this case she has quickly and cleanly cut through Yehuda's Demnski-esque BS and defined the deal in in simple english.

Neither you or Sounder seem to have paid any attention to the words I quoted, instead referring to those I didn't comment on. Todd had already earned the $100,000 and Clouser's latercomer act and claim on half the reward was pathetic, even in jest.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

Oops, sorry, she didn't lay claim on half, but even "some" isn't warranted.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

A mess, true, but all in all, the Jews seem to holding their own.

Yeah, most of us here on the central California coast are doing rather well. Israeli != Jew

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

WEEE! I was very right that Carol Clauser would give this guy the heave-ho. The depth of her insanity is way deeper than that patzer.
------------------------------------------------

I thought this was over. I guess you guys like me even more than you let on. Anyway, I just spoke to one of my "panel of experts" and his reply was
"Discreditation? Could you please tell me what you are referring to?" Ball's in your court Carol.

And Todd, since you didn't enter the contest in the first place, I don't know what you are griping. But if you want to send me your address through my website www.asacredproof.com I'll be a good sport and send you a free copy of my flick.

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

Chrissakes, man, you thought you had a proof of the existence of God and you didn't even bother to go to the zoo and check? I mean, most people would know the badger thing simply from reading The Wind in the Willows when they were a kid. Or hell, watching the movie.

somebody mentioned his "badger" might be refering to a "rock badger" also known as a hyrax. YF did not confirm nor deny this, but it would make slightly more sense, at least if things make sense in this fantasyland zoo he is trying to create. This guy is a filmmakker? for what? junior high PE classes?

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

By your logic this should be proof of Brahman
---------------------------------------------
Interesting word "Brahman." Flip it around and you get "Abraham" the first Jew.

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

just for shits and giggles, I googled "Lucky Penny Films"... and got nothing.

as far as google can tell, there is no registered film company with the name Lucky Penny.

which is interesting in and of itself. far more so that Yehuda gomer's attempts to prove the existence of God.

I would have thought sure there would at least be ONE film company with the name Lucky Penny.

Methinks Yehuda is a whack job.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

Interesting word "Brahman." Flip it around and you get "Abraham" the first Jew.

No, at best you get "Abrahnm". Ah, but the Bible is literally true if one accounts for spelling errors, where "7 days" is a misspelling of "15 billion years", "God" is a misspelling of "natural processes", etc.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Methinks Yehuda is a whack job
--------------------------------
If I hang around this blog much longer I'll probably become one.

My expert is still awaiting discredidation?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/will_dembski_ha.html#postcomment

Is this the Dembski you guys keep referring to? What did you do to him?

Stevaroni · 4 August 2006

"3,000,000 Jewish men, women, and children witnessed G-d giving the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai some 3300 years ago.

Were there 3 million Jews anywhere in the middle east till recently? How big is Israel now anyhow? 20 million people? Seems pretty damned dense, compared to what the land could have supported way back when. As I recall it, don't modern historians put the exodus at something like 5000 or so people? Anyhow, I must have a defective copy of the Bible, because my Bible says Moses went up the mountain alone, and then came down with the commandments. Which, by the way, he then decided to smash to bits because in his absence his followers were not only not watching and waiting for him, but were instead busy having a helluva party. By the way, why are we saying "G-d", instead of God? Is this one of those bizzare self-depricating can't-say-the-name-of-Yaweh things that I wouldn't understand?

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

It's one of those mumbo jumbo religious dogma things you probably wouldn't understand, even after reading http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Anton Mates · 4 August 2006

Chrissakes, man, you thought you had a proof of the existence of God and you didn't even bother to go to the zoo and check? I mean, most people would know the badger thing simply from reading The Wind in the Willows when they were a kid. Or hell, watching the movie.
— Sir_Toejam
somebody mentioned his "badger" might be refering to a "rock badger" also known as a hyrax.

That was me, actually. And no, I don't think he means a hyrax, or he would have called it that. For that matter, I doubt he's ever heard of 'em. I just think most people with any interest in the matter translate the KJV "rock badger" that way.

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

gotchya.

so where the hell did he get badgers from?

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

Is this the Dembski you guys keep referring to? What did you do to him?

lol. over time, I think he cooked his brains himself. We did nothing to him but watch and laugh. I suspect a similar pattern will emerge here, as well.

Anonymous_Coward · 4 August 2006

Yehuda!

I have done as you requested and told you my qualifications etc. Now it's your turn.

You're not going to go back on your promise like you did to Todd, are you?

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

so where the hell did he get badgers from?

From dropping the word "rock" from the phrase "rock badgers", most likely.

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

well, "we no need no stinkin' badgers!"

(trivia quiz - which film, who starred, and when was it made)

Stevaroni · 4 August 2006

A mess, true, but all in all, the Jews seem to holding their own.
Yeah, most of us here on the central California coast are doing rather well. Israeli != Jew

Yeah, I know that, and I didn't mean to generalize. It's just that given our heavy emphasis on the Olde Testament, if you see the word "Jews" on this board, it usually implies we're talking about the the middle east. Sadly, lots of words these days imply that we're talking about the middle east.

Stevaroni · 4 August 2006

"3,000,000 Jewish men, women, and children witnessed G-d giving the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai some 3300 years ago.

And apparently, only two of them bothered to write anything down. And their accounts differ (at least in my apparently defective Bible, your Torah may not have two versions in the equivalent of the book of Exodus, but I was of the impression that he first five books are substantially the same).

Darth Robo · 4 August 2006

"trivia quiz - which film, who starred, and when was it made"

Was it this one?

www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php

Or maybe that was Yehuda's trailer.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 4 August 2006

just for shits and giggles, I googled "Lucky Penny Films"... and got nothing.

Sir Toe Jam go here to see the other lucky penny film. Yehuda side steps:

I thought this was over. I guess you guys like me even more than you let on. Anyway, I just spoke to one of my "panel of experts" and his reply was "Discreditation? Could you please tell me what you are referring to?"

So much for a reasoned response from the experts. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

J-Dog · 4 August 2006

re: "We don't need no stinkin' badge(r)s!"

The Mel Brooks classic, Blazing Saddles!
I win! Where is my $100,000? Cleavon Little as the black sherrif, Alex Karas, former Detroit Lion as Mongo, Gene Wilder as the flawed gunslinger, and of course Mel Brooks as the Jew.

I think it would nbe more germain to THIS discussion however, to discuss amongst ourselves, Mel's movie, "History of the World, Part I", where he is Moses coming down the mountain with the "15 Commandments". He drops a tablet and tells the Jews about the "10 commandments". The world has been screwed up ever since...

William E Emba · 4 August 2006

Anonymous painting of poker-playing dogs.

Are you referring to A Friend in Need, commonly called "Dogs Playing Poker"? It was painted by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge.

argystokes · 4 August 2006

"trivia quiz - which film, who starred, and when was it made"

1. UHF 2. Weird Al Yankovic 3. 1989

Todd · 4 August 2006

I thought this was over. I guess you guys like me even more than you let on. Anyway, I just spoke to one of my "panel of experts" and his reply was "Discreditation? Could you please tell me what you are referring to?" Ball's in your court Carol.
— Yehuda Freeman

Uh, no. The ball is still in your court. He asked what you are referring to. Now you have to tell him.

And Todd, since you didn't enter the contest in the first place, I don't know what you are griping. But if you want to send me your address through my website www.asacredproof.com I'll be a good sport and send you a free copy of my flick.
— Yehuda Freeman

This was never about money. I am not an idiot. I know you would never pay me even if I entered the contest properly. I am not going to waste $20 on a contest that I knew I would never get the reward for even if I won. This is about the truth. You gave very specific conditions under which your proof would be refuted. I have satisfied your conditions. It has now been 2 days and you have made a bunch of posts here yet you have steadfastly refused to address my refutation directly. You have done everything you can to avoid the issue, dealing with completely extraneous issues. However, in the end you said that finding one more one-signed animal would be a refutation of your proof. I did so, 5 times over. You must deal with this issue. No more dodging. I showed you 5 additional one-signed animals. You must address those.

William E Emba · 4 August 2006

re: "We don't need no stinkin' badgeÂ®s!" The Mel Brooks classic, Blazing Saddles!
— J-Dog

As someone else already pointed out, the "stinkin' badgers" line is from Weird Al's UHF. The original "stinkin' badges" lines are from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, in the B Traven novel and later the Humphrey Bogart movie, although not exactly "We don't need no stinkin' badges." That is the form most quoted nowadays. It was made famous in Blazing Saddles, yes, but true trivia pundits know it was first spoken by Micky Dolenz back in The Monkees! Sheesh, some of you people lead deprived lives.

Michael Suttkus, II · 4 August 2006

Please, people!

The line "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" is from the classic 1948 film, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". Actually, it's a slight misquote, the original being "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"

Every other source to use the phrase "stinking badges" is making a reference to Sierra Madre. It's a Humphrey Boggart film.

The line about Badgers is indeed from "UHF". It's also, of course, a reference to Sierra Madre.

I have seen neither film.

Michael Suttkus, II · 4 August 2006

JINX!

Henry J · 4 August 2006

Re "so where the hell did he get badgers from?"

Wisconsin?

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

However, in the end you said that finding one more one-signed animal would be a refutation of your proof. I did so, 5 times over. You must deal with this issue.
------------------------------------------------
The only qualifications anyone needs to be a film maker is how to point a camera. My film presents a long standing "proof" in its pristine state. I personally don't need to know anything about it in order to make a film. I mean, what did Kubrik know about the year 2001 when he made that film? Whether the subjects in the film or the sources know what they are talking about is their problem. This blog is forcing me to become an "expert" on the subject should the situation ever arise where I have to talk about. Thus far I have not been presented with any evidence of the proof being discredited. Also even Carol admits that it hinges on the definition of two Hebrew words. Your refutation may still be wrong should a deeper investigation into the proof itself (ex. the split hoof having to be entirely split for the animal to qualify) become known. In fact, thanks to this blog I am considering making a film called "Sacred Proof 2: The Refutations." Maybe you'd be interested in that? But remember, I'd just be pointing my camera in your face.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Correction: Originally I wrote:
The only qualifications anyone needs to be a film maker is how to point a camera.
This should read:
The only qualifications anyone needs to be a film maker is how to point a camera and even that's debatable - "Blair Witch."

Carol Clouser · 4 August 2006

Yehuda Freeman,

It is a waste of time talking to you.

You continue to discredit your own cause.

You are a disgrace.

k.e. · 4 August 2006

Qualifications? We don't need no stinking qualifications.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 4 August 2006

Todd addresses Yehuda:

You must deal with this issue. No more dodging. I showed you 5 additional one-signed animals. You must address those.

Todd, you will not receive a coherent answer, you committed the most grievous sin. You approached the problem from a rational biological viewpoint and not a mystical religious viewpoint. Hovind's contest claims a panel of experts that include "a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few." Yehuda's experts are unnamed, but from reading his site the camp where the video was filmed is one of mysticism and many cast members in the video are Rabbis. Presumably his panel of experts is composed of these religious scholars who practice mysticism and not scientists. Yehuda, if you want a truly fundamentalist, YECist, antievolutionist site Talk Origins is where you want to start. All the creationist arguments are organized, of course they are all debunked, but that's not a problem. All relevant quotes ready to be cut and pasted to your web site. Links to creationist sites are available. You can create a first rate creationist site targeted specifically for your audience with little effort. Given the audience, practicing mystics, I would not expect anyone to back track to the primary sources any of the quotes you cite or your evidence. You should be able to rake in the bucks with little effort using others work. I think this is an appropriate business approach that will help generate sales of your video within your community. Ethically challenged and morally bankrupt at Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

It is a waste of time talking to you.
You continue to discredit your own cause.
You are a disgrace.
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you Carol, I didn't realize how much you like me either. Fork up your proof discrediting source so my experts can start tearing you apart.

steve s · 4 August 2006

Comment #116874 Posted by Carol Clouser on August 4, 2006 01:26 PM (e) | kill Yehuda Freeman, It is a waste of time talking to you. You continue to discredit your own cause. You are a disgrace.

Goddammit, I Just Bought that ironymeter.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Yehuda, if you want a truly fundamentalist, YECist, antievolutionist site Talk Origins is where you want to start. All the creationist arguments are organized, of course they are all debunked, but that's not a problem.
------------------------------------------------
Nobody gets it. A good example of what this is all about might be a documentary I saw on Wiles's proof for FLT. Before I saw this film I wasn't aware of FLT or Wiles. The film itself barely touched on his proof since it was 200 pages long.
Nobody questioned the film maker's expertise on FLT but apparently the film did a lot as far attracting interest into mathematics. Since then I've seen a lot of proofs for FLT and I've even met one guy who claims he has a 4 or 5 line proof that will fit in a locket. But no film has been made about any of them. The point is, it's about improving education standards in America, not how much money I can make on my film.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

The point is, it's about improving education standards in America, not how much money I can make on my film.
------------------------------------------------
Any bets on how many wonderful loving comments I get on that?

Coin · 4 August 2006

The film itself barely touched on his proof since it was 200 pages long. Nobody questioned the film maker's expertise on FLT but apparently the film did a lot as far attracting interest into mathematics. Since then I've seen a lot of proofs for FLT and I've even met one guy who claims he has a 4 or 5 line proof that will fit in a locket. But no film has been made about any of them.

Now... wait. This is Fermat's Last Theorem we're talking about? Lots of people have claimed to have proved Fermat's Last Theorem at various times. Wiles is the only one I'm aware of whose proof has stood up when scrutinized. What are these alternate / shorter proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem you refer to, where can we find them, and how do we know they are accurate?

The point is, it's about improving education standards in America, not how much money I can make on my film. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any bets on how many wonderful loving comments I get on that?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero, because nobody believes you. By the way, if you want to quote someone in these nice boxes like we're doing, you type this: <quote author="USER_NAME_HERE">These words will appear in a nice pretty box.</quote>

Bruce Thompson GQ · 4 August 2006

The point is, it's about improving education standards in America, not how much money I can make on my film.

Then: 1. Provide a scientific rebuttal to Todd's evidence. 2. Don't change you site and start including creationist clap trap about missing links and the big bang, unless you want assistance with additional creationist claims. 3. Quit contradicting yourself : I'm just making you aware that it exists and that I've already done the research for you and that my film is the way I have chosen to publish it. Versus This blog is forcing me to become an "expert" on the subject should the situation ever arise where I have to talk about. You were taught the 4 proofs, you researched the area before starting the film, but before arriving here you were unprepared to discuss the subject? You want to do what to the education system? Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Bruce Thompson GQ · 4 August 2006

Coin, proved you wrong.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Coin · 4 August 2006

Coin, proved you wrong.
— Bruce Thompson GQ

Ah, well, that was certainly a comment, but I'm not so sure it was loving :)

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Wiles is the only one I'm aware of whose proof has stood up when scrutinized.
---------------------------------------------
Last I heard there was an error in it. Type "FLT" on google for starters. The guy with the locket proof is another anonymous coward. He'd never be able to handle exposure.

Steviepinhead · 4 August 2006

Ooookay. Well, while he's never directly clarified my original concerns, after reviewing his latest series of posts, it's all become more than clear to me:

Mr. Yehuda I've-got-such-strong-biological-proof-of-G-d-I'm gonna-wager-$100K-of-my-own-money (oops! somebody else's money; oops! I fibbed, there's no real contest at all; oops! I never claimed to know a darned thing, myself, I just pointed my camera at some self-proclaimed experts) is--

--Stiff as a board and

--Dumb as a post and

--Numb as a knot and

--As dense as a sackful of doorknobs!

Thanks, Yehuda, for finally clearing that up!

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

1. Provide a scientific rebuttal to Todd's evidence
--------------------------------------------
I'll be meeting with an expert later tonight but I won't be able to blog from sundown tonight until sundown tomorrow. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate any proof discrediting sources which would help at this point.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

---Stiff as a board and
---Dumb as a post and
---Numb as a knot and
---As dense as a sackful of doorknobs!
----------------------------------------------
Thanks I love you too. You're winning the wonderful loving comment contest so far. But I will give you guys credit. You don't use swear words. That's almost miraculous!

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Just curious, what happens at this Bell Harbor meeting? You all just sit around and live-blog each other to death? Does anything get accomplished? Maybe you'll need an entertaining film to alleviate the boardom er boredom?

Coin · 4 August 2006

Last I heard there was an error in it. Type "FLT" on google for starters.
— Yehuda Freeman

There was an error with the originally submitted version of Wiles' proof, yes, I'm aware. But it was fixed the very next year, and the corrected version is the one which has stood up. This was all over a decade ago, so unless the "last you heard" was late 1993 or something, I must conclude you were not paying much attention whenever you heard about this error. This is why mathematical writings are refereed in the first place-- to ensure that errors are caught and corrected. Corrections being required as part of the refereeing process is not a bad thing, and simply means that the process is being followed properly. Since the important thing here is a process of uncovering the truth (rather than simply starting out by declaring a truth and then working to convince everyone of it), it can actually be less important whether one is right to begin with than whether one can work to understand and correct one's mistakes.

The guy with the locket proof is another anonymous coward. He'd never be able to handle exposure.

Clearly not; after all, it is most likely that if he subjected his ideas to exposure, they would be immediately shown wrong.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

they would be immediately shown wrong.
--------------------------------------------
Probably. He showed it to me and of course it looked great but I'm no expert. And I didn't see any production value as far as making a film about it. He just seems to be quite content to keep it in a locket.

David B. Benson · 4 August 2006

Wow, this thread has become fairly funny. I'll throw in some more: there was no exodus. Carol C. made it up out of whole cloth in a previous incarnation.

So there!

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Corrections being required as part of the refereeing process is not a bad thing, and simply means that the process is being followed properly.
------------------------------------------------
Excellent. That is precisely how I view this blog. Since there are no rules or referees in film making, unless you enter a festival, the opinions stated here have been most enlightening. The contest has been subsequently viewed as a mistake (for the reason stated previously) and the need for me to become an expert in the "proof" and its "refutations" has been made lovingly apparent since I can't get G-d or Moses, the main subjects of my film, to come down and explain it. (O man, I can already feel the comments on that one.)

AC · 4 August 2006

This one, though briefly mentioned in my film, is not biological unless you want to consider human beings as biological entities. It goes like this:
— Yehuda Freeman

This thread is delightfully silly.

Yehuda Freeman · 4 August 2006

Anyway folks,
Shabbos is fast approaching. Time to hit the Mikva, set up the candles, put the Kiddush wine in the fridge, take out the Challa from the oven, and basically elevate the biological world to its source in Malchus (the tenth sphera) of Atzilus (the world of Emination). See you tomorrow night if this thing is still going.

Yuel · 4 August 2006

Ah, Cold Springs Harbor.

That brings back sweet memories.

Read all about them at www.waragainsttheweak.com

Coin · 4 August 2006

they would be immediately shown wrong [in their abbreviated Fermat's Last Theorem proof]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Probably. He showed it to me and of course it looked great but I'm no expert. And I didn't see any production value as far as making a film about it. He just seems to be quite content to keep it in a locket.
— Yehuda Freeman

The contest has been subsequently viewed as a mistake (for the reason stated previously)

Not that the contest is now viewed as a mistake because you lost it?

...and the need for me to become an expert in the "proof" and its "refutations" has been made lovingly apparent

Now-- it's quite possible I simply misunderstand, but are you saying here that the idea of it being necessary to learn about a subject before you make pronouncements about it is one which was unknown to you before you entered this thread? Hm....

Sir_Toejam · 4 August 2006

1. UHF 2. Weird Al Yankovic 3. 1989

oooh. good. I would have also accepted that it was a twist on the original. for bonus points, what was the original? same question set.

Matt · 4 August 2006

Ah, Cold Springs Harbor. That brings back sweet memories. Read all about them at www.waragainsttheweak.com
— Yuel

It's Cold Spring Harbor. I almost brought up the shameful role that the Eugenics Records Office, at CSH from 1910 to 1940, played in the American eugenics movement. It a truly a blot on our collective consciences. I decided that it was irrelevant to the point of my post. Nevertheless, it's a part of our country's history that should not be, indeed, must not be forgotten. See also the Wikipedia entry.

Coin · 4 August 2006

After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement --- its institutions and leading scientists --- renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics.
— www.waragainsttheweak.com

So uh... is this for serious and there's a modern eugenics movement masquerading under the title "human genetics", or is somebody just exploiting a horrible national tragedy to push some kind of anti-science conspiracy theory here?

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

Yeah, I know that, and I didn't mean to generalize.

Then write "all in all, Israel seems to be holding its own" if that's what you mean. Every time "Israel" and "the Jews" are used interchangably, it adds support to the portrayal of criticism of actions by the state of Israel as anti-semiticism by apologists for those actions, and to blame of "the Jews" for those actions by anti-semites.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

It a truly a blot on our collective consciences.

Well, it's a blot on our collective behavior. It's not clear what effect it's had on our consciences.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

for bonus points, what was the original? same question set.

The question set is poor. The film starred Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, and Walter Huston, but it was Alfonso Bedoya who uttered the line.

Popper's ghost · 4 August 2006

And, of course, "We don't need no stinkin' badges" was never uttered in that movie, just as "Play it again, Sam" was never uttered in Casablanca.

Matt · 4 August 2006

NB: My comment acknowledging CSHL's role in the American Eugenics movement in no way endorses Yuel's source. "Human genetics" is not at all the same as eugenics.

Also: If Yuel's comment disappears it's because he's been banned for posting under multiple names.

(The whole of his comment about eugenics remains as a quote in my reply.)

Anton Mates · 4 August 2006

The only qualifications anyone needs to be a film maker is how to point a camera. My film presents a long standing "proof" in its pristine state. I personally don't need to know anything about it in order to make a film. I mean, what did Kubrik know about the year 2001 when he made that film? Whether the subjects in the film or the sources know what they are talking about is their problem.
— Yehuda Freeman

a) The amount of research that went into the making of 2001 is legendary. NASA employees were used as consultants. Arthur freakin' C. Clarke co-wrote the screenplay. It's generally recognized as one of the most accurate depictions of space travel in fiction. (I mean, barring the magic godlike aliens and so forth.) Stanley Kubrick is not, in general, someone you point to for sloppy and unresearched films. b) 2001 was science fiction. You, apparently, have made a documentary. A science documentary, in fact. Don't you think the informedness bar should be slightly higher for people who believe they're making films about reality? Now if your film was simply a psychological sketch of some interesting person or persons who believed they had a proof of God's existence, hey, great. It would still be a defect IMO if you didn't spend any time finding out what other scholars thought of that proof, but so be it. But if you don't know anything about it and don't want to, why in the world would you go around proclaiming to the world what a wonderful proof it is and running a contest to defend it?

Yehuda's experts are unnamed, but from reading his site the camp where the video was filmed is one of mysticism and many cast members in the video are Rabbis. Presumably his panel of experts is composed of these religious scholars who practice mysticism and not scientists.
— Bruce Thompson GQ

I don't think I've ever met a rabbi who wouldn't look at you like you were demented if you asked him if badgers chewed the cud...not that I've met that many.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 4 August 2006

I don't think I've ever met a rabbi who wouldn't look at you like you were demented if you asked him if badgers chewed the cud...not that I've met that many.

This presupposes that I'm not demented to begin with and by engaging in this discussion with Yehuda the point is certainly debatable. My only suggestion to counteract the interruption of threads with silly questions about badgers, camels, and pigs is the virtual equivalent of this special badger. While the discussion has centered on camel foot morphology, more important aspects of camel behavior have been overlooked. This is of more interest to those of us in the fraternity house. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Stevaroni · 5 August 2006

Yehuda opined Since there are no rules or referees in film making...

True enough, there are few legal requirements. There are few legal requirements for a lot of things. But, like the old Hebrew National hot dog commercials used to say, You have to answer to a higher authority. You purport to be a highly religious man who spent much of his recent life fighting the good fight in God's name. A name you won't even type, you're so pious. But your personal ethics seem, um, challenged. Some might say, laweresque, excuse-ridden, weaselly, something like that. Yes, American ethics have deteriorated to the point where Clintonian excuses along the lines of "I didn't inhale" are the norm, but you claim to live a life above that. It strikes me that someone who really meant to "walk the walk", someone who says he fasts over the memory of two-thousand year old tragedies, could do a better job with the spirit of "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

Yehuda Freeman · 5 August 2006

It strikes me that someone who really meant to "walk the walk", someone who says he fasts over the memory of two-thousand year old tragedies, could do a better job with the spirit of "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
--------------------------------------------------
Over the last 25 hours I've discovered the world's foremost and probably only published authority on the subject. See "The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax" by Nosson Slifkin 2004. He's backed up by an amazing roster of experts (real scientists from all over the world) and he can probably tell you which animals will refute the proof if there are any. He also discusses which version of the proof has been discredited. The book is very thorough and in his conclusion it appears as if he himself does not believe it is a proof for G-d's existence. On the other hand he admits to not being able to fully penetrate the view of the Talmud that the 4 animals listed in the Torah is exhaustive which is only further proof that the logic of the Talmud (known as G-d's logic) is not always comprehensible by man. In fact, the concept of Kosher is called a "Chok" which means we must observe it without understanding it simply because we are commanded to. Another such "Chok" is the "red cow" which King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, was unable to comprehend.

Sir_Toejam · 5 August 2006

The film starred Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, and Walter Huston, but it was Alfonso Bedoya who uttered the line.

the question set was not poor. you knew the answer, or you looked it up. I'll take it on faith you knew similarly the name and date. you get the bonus points. Humphrey IS considered the lead star, in case that was why you were thinking the question was phrased poorly (as suggested by your answer). for those wondering: Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948; were the rest of the answers. the exact original quotation is:

Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.

ahh, yes, the destructive power of greed. If you've never had the opportunity to watch the film, I highly recommend it.

Yehuda Freeman · 5 August 2006

But your personal ethics seem, um, challenged. Some might say, laweresque, excuse-ridden, weaselly, something like that.
-----------------------------------------------
I spent the first half of my life in pool halls and Universities. I became a Baal Teshuva, a returnee to true faith of more literally "Master of Repentence" when I was 27 but the transition has been extremely challenging to say the least. One thing I have discovered however, is that the level of intelligence demonstrated by real Hassidic scholars far exceeds that of secular scholars to the point of not even being comparable. If proponents of evolution theory, Darwinism and ID would allow themselves to learn just a few pages of the work of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, for example, all of their questions would disappear.

Michael Suttkus, II · 5 August 2006

He gets the bonus points? HE DOES? I answered the question first! I answered the question before you asked it! Check my post from several days ago! I even provided the original quote!

I get no respect. NO RESPECT!

Yehuda Freeman · 5 August 2006

Ah, I see now. So what we have is a secret and mathematically meaningful inscription of truth, of obscure origin, hidden from the world, whose truth is known to its scribe through the power of faith, kept in a talisman. How delightfully Qabala.
-------------------------------------------------
I think the "FLT in a locket" guy is just trying to upshlog Fermat who couldn't fit his proof into a margin and Wiles whose proof is 200 pages long.

Michael Suttkus, II · 5 August 2006

He gets the bonus points? HE DOES? I answered the question first! I answered the question before you asked it! Check my post from several days ago! I even provided the original quote!

I get no respect. NO RESPECT!

Michael Suttkus, II · 5 August 2006

He gets the points? HE GETS THE POINTS? Those are my points! I answered the question days ago, before it was even asked! I deserve double points!

Sir_Toejam · 5 August 2006

sure enough, i missed that amongst all the drivel from YF.

my apologies!

double points it is.

in fact, double points for everybody!

whee!

pass me that bottle, would ya?

Popper's ghost · 6 August 2006

or you looked it up.

Gee, ya think?

Humphrey IS considered the lead star, in case that was why you were thinking the question was phrased poorly (as suggested by your answer).

Uh, no, as I said the question set, not the phrasing, was poor -- because we were discussing the line about badge[r]s, which wasn't uttered by any of the stars, who really aren't relevant. And the lead actor was Bogart, not "Humphrey"; I doubt that even Lauren called him that, and there are no google hits for "don't Humphrey that joint".

Popper's ghost · 6 August 2006

He gets the points? HE GETS THE POINTS? Those are my points! I answered the question days ago, before it was even asked! I deserve double points!

Well sure, I knew that -- and was stunned that there was anyone who didn't know where the line was originally from. I did think it was odd that STJ was asking about the original film when you had already mentioned it, but he didn't ask for the title, which is what you provided ... plus a misspelling of Bogart. Of course this whole thing is incredibly silly, since even the clueless can easily find out any of this from google. For instance, you can find far more references to "stinking badge[r]s" than you care to know at http://www.darryl.com/badges/allindex.shtml

Popper's ghost · 6 August 2006

Oops, sorry, he did ask which film. Ok, I forfeit my points. I've been drinking and my testosterone level is unusually high.

Sir_Toejam · 6 August 2006

Oops, sorry, he did ask which film. Ok, I forfeit my points. I've been drinking and my testosterone level is unusually high.

lot of that going around lately. oh, and pass that bottle, would ya?

stevaroni · 6 August 2006

If proponents of evolution theory, Darwinism and ID would allow themselves to learn just a few pages of the work of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, for example, all of their questions would disappear.

I'm always open to rational discussion. And frankly, as far a clergy goes, I've always thought the Rabbi's I've met were much sharper and better educated than the Catholic priests I grew up with. That being said, does the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe base his deep revelation on modern DNA technology and recent paleological finds, or is it based on still more endless parsing of a 3000 year old book about proto-Jewish social norms to establish the "truth" about the material world via the letters of the disputed old jewish name for the lesser gray rock wombat? Now, If you'll excuse me, I must leave on a busisness trip, as I live in said material world.

Yehuda Freeman · 6 August 2006

That being said, does the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe base his deep revelation on modern DNA technology and recent paleological finds, or is it based on still more endless parsing of a 3000 year old book about proto-Jewish social norms to establish the "truth" about the material world via the letters of the disputed old jewish name for the lesser gray rock wombat?
------------------------------------------------
Like I said, your questions will disappear.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 6 August 2006

Yehuda

I'm glad you find comfort in your faith and that your quest for spirituality gives you fulfillment. But your search for answers seems to generate more questions as evidenced by your repeated posting of questions to us. Either you believe that you have the answers to these questions and are unwilling to share those answers, the Rebbi had those answers and they can be found in his writings, or you are unsure of the correct interpretation of his writings as they relate to the modern world.

Another possibility is that by posting here at Panda's Thumb you are searching for a test of you faith based on your knowledge. If so, I think you have found that the free and open inquiry based on a search for naturalistic explanations of the world produces individuals who were willing to rise to your challenge and provide rational explanations to your proof of the biological existence of the creator. Many here find no conflict between faith and science and many adhere to science principles exclusively in a search for explanations of the natural world. I would suggest that you expand your horizons to include natural explanations for phenomena in the world around you.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Anton Mates · 6 August 2006

On the other hand he admits to not being able to fully penetrate the view of the Talmud that the 4 animals listed in the Torah is exhaustive which is only further proof that the logic of the Talmud (known as G-d's logic) is not always comprehensible by man. In fact, the concept of Kosher is called a "Chok" which means we must observe it without understanding it simply because we are commanded to. Another such "Chok" is the "red cow" which King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, was unable to comprehend.
— Yehuda Freeman

Possibly not a very good thing to base a logical proof on, then?

William E Emba · 6 August 2006

Over the last 25 hours I've discovered the world's foremost and probably only published authority on the subject. See "The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax" by Nosson Slifkin 2004. He's backed up by an amazing roster of experts (real scientists from all over the world) and he can probably tell you which animals will refute the proof if there are any. He also discusses which version of the proof has been discredited. The book is very thorough and in his conclusion it appears as if he himself does not believe it is a proof for G-d's existence. ...
— Yehuda Freeman

This is the same Rabbi Slifkin whose books have been banned as heretical by some of the leading rabbis in Jerusalem, as long-time readers of this blog remember. Good luck choosing between wanting to associate yourself with such kaferus for the sake of winning an argument on a blog, or protecting your immortal soul from further disaster. I mean, you're already using the Internet, which is bad enough.

Kevin from nyc · 6 August 2006

Yehuda Freeman wrote:

"On the other hand he admits to not being able to fully penetrate the 4 animals listed in the Torah....."

So, you allowed to have sex with animals but not eat them? I guess you performing oral sex on them is out...

Yehuda Freeman · 7 August 2006

So, you allowed to have sex with animals but not eat them? I guess you performing oral sex on them is out...
-------------------------------------------------
So much for the miraculousness of this blog.

-------------------------------------------------
This is the same Rabbi Slifkin whose books have been banned as heretical by some of the leading rabbis in Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------

Dumb question - how do I find out about this? When my "expert" told me about this book he did subtly indicate that Slifkin was "controversial."
From what I've read so far, however, his study is extremely thorough and every point is backed up.
It has also been a common policy throughout Jewish history that when a scholar arises who appears to be a cut above the current kings of the sandbox, so to speak, they excommunicate the guy and brand him a heretic. The Rambam and the first Lubavitcher Rebbe for example, whose works speak for themselves. So I prefer to keep an open mind.
------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you expand your horizons to include natural explanations for phenomena in the world around you.
------------------------------------------------
Good advise and well taken. And as I said before this experience has been awesome to the point where the entire promotion of my film is in the process of being overhauled.

Steviepinhead · 7 August 2006

Yes, Yehuda, and ceasing to bang your head against a wall feels good too.

Which doesn't mean that banging your head against the wall was a good idea in the first place.

Popper's ghost · 7 August 2006

I prefer to keep an open mind.

Anton Mates · 7 August 2006

Darwin never got past "in the beginning ...

My goodness. Somehow my eyes just slid right over that until you pointed it out.

sparc · 7 August 2006

Is this the Dembski you guys keep referring to? What did you do to him?
— Yehuda Freeman

This obviously shows that UD is going down without DaveScot...

William E Emba · 7 August 2006

This is the same Rabbi Slifkin whose books have been banned as heretical by some of the leading rabbis in Jerusalem
— Yehuda Freeman
Dumb question - how do I find out about this? When my "expert" told me about this book he did subtly indicate that Slifkin was "controversial."

Try Failed Messiah, a blog dedicated to the warts, controversies, and scandals that the frum press will never admit even exist. Not much is known, actually, since the banners followed the standard practice of not engaging heretics in debate, and did not even inform Rabbi Slifkin of what was unacceptable. Unfortunately, this leaves great uncertainty as to what they found problematic in the first place. My own guess is they don't want their community to know that the Rambam in Moreh Nevukim 1:1 and 2:25 was quite explicit in rejecting the literal reading of Bereishis, and for saying that in any conflict between science and Biblical literalism, science wins. Moment magazine has an article on the matter, but I can't consider them a reliable source.

From what I've read so far, however, his study is extremely thorough and every point is backed up. It has also been a common policy throughout Jewish history that when a scholar arises who appears to be a cut above the current kings of the sandbox, so to speak, they excommunicate the guy and brand him a heretic. The Rambam and the first Lubavitcher Rebbe for example, whose works speak for themselves. So I prefer to keep an open mind.

I'm perfectly happy with that. You will find many people who are not, to the point of hysteric rage.

Yehuda Freeman · 7 August 2006

BWAHAHAHA! This from the fellow who offers "an ancient irrefutable biological proof for the existence of G-d", "you'll understand that the game is over and that there is no reality to the basis of this discussion which is largely founded upon one of science's greatest false axioms", "Darwin never got past "in the beginning ..."", and numerous other stupid and ignorant but absolute claims.
-------------------------------------------------
The proof still stands. But I have to pull a Clint Eastwood and hide out for awhile to heal my wounds. I'll be back in a week to finish you off unless Providence does it for me.

Stephen Wells · 7 August 2006

If proponents of evolution theory, Darwinism and ID would allow themselves to learn just a few pages of the work of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, for example, all of their questions would disappear.
— yehuda freeman

I'd like to know how the Lubavitcher Rebbe accounts for the patterns of genetic variation in mitochondrial cytochrome C across the eukaryotic organisms. If, as I suspect, said Rebbe never heard of cytochrome C, then his opinions on evolutionary biology are unlikely to be helpful or relevant. Or, of course, he could always try to explain whether humans were created before or after the other animals; would Lilith be involved?

Carol Clouser · 8 August 2006

Stephen Wells,

Your supposition about the sixth Rebbe, whose name was Joseph Isaac Schneerson (1880-1950) is right on target. He had no secular education to speak of, was opposed to any form of education other than religious indoctrination for his many thousands of followers, and there is no indication that he even knew mitochondria existed.

The story is very different however in the case of the seventh rebbe (now deceased without any heirs to succeed him in leading the movement). He was Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a giant in knowledge of Torah, spoke at least six languages fluently and, unlike all other chasidic leaders, received an extensive secular education at the Serbonne, University of Berlin and University of Moscow. His writings and talks make it abundantly clear that he was very highly educated and a profound thinker. I would compare him to Maimonides in his generation. Alas, he was a YEC supporter and argued that all the evidence to the contrary does not constitute "proof".

Yehuda Freeman's comments make it clear that he is a victim of that movement's worldwide outreach programs. It is well known that most of the folks who change their lives around on the basis of the propoganda they pick up from this and similar movements are typically uneducated nutcases looking for some direction to their lives, and Yehuda Freeman is evidence of this. Much like any extremist cultist he needs to be deprogrammed. He has my sympathy.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

The proof still stands.

The point was your claim that you have an open mind. No one with an open mind would make such a claim in light of the responses here, bozo.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 August 2006

It is well known that most of the folks who change their lives around on the basis of the propoganda they pick up from this and similar movements are typically uneducated nutcases looking for some direction to their lives, and Yehuda Freeman is evidence of this. Much like any extremist cultist he needs to be deprogrammed.

Sounds like any typical ID/creationist. They are all FULL of talk about how life without ID/creationism "has no purpose".

William E Emba · 8 August 2006

I spent the first half of my life in pool halls and Universities. I became a Baal Teshuva, a returnee to true faith of more literally "Master of Repentence" when I was 27 but the transition has been extremely challenging to say the least. One thing I have discovered however, is that the level of intelligence demonstrated by real Hassidic scholars far exceeds that of secular scholars to the point of not even being comparable.
— Yehuda Freeman

I, personally, have never noticed any nontrivial intelligence among Hassidim, except for their extraordinary talents at welfare pimping.

If proponents of evolution theory, Darwinism and ID would allow themselves to learn just a few pages of the work of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, for example, all of their questions would disappear.

I have read the four volumes of his Likkutei Dibburim, and frankly, they are amazingly bizarre even by Jewish standards. Really, there is nothing he (nor the 7th rebbe, whom I think you must have meant) that comes even close to saying anything about biology or science in general that isn't total ignorance.

Matt · 8 August 2006

Note that Yehuda Freeman has never said that reading these particular mystical works will result in questions being answered. Only that the questions "would disappear".

Sounds ominous.

William E Emba · 8 August 2006

Your supposition about the sixth Rebbe, whose name was Joseph Isaac Schneerson (1880-1950) is right on target. He had no secular education to speak of, was opposed to any form of education other than religious indoctrination for his many thousands of followers, ...
— Carol Clouser

Rather ironically, the little bit of secular education he did have was too much for his childhood religious instructor, who resigned and founded his own splinter group, the melachim.

The story is very different however in the case of the seventh rebbe .... He was Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a giant in knowledge of Torah, spoke at least six languages fluently and, unlike all other chasidic leaders, received an extensive secular education at the Serbonne, University of Berlin and University of Moscow.

The stories of his secular education are greatly exaggerated. He had some exposure, but apparently nothing more than a few courses.

His writings and talks make it abundantly clear that he was very highly educated and a profound thinker. I would compare him to Maimonides in his generation.

Almost unanimously, the rest of the Orthodox Jewish community did not consider him to be a profound thinker. What little I've read by him has left me underwhelmed.

Alas, he was a YEC supporter and argued that all the evidence to the contrary does not constitute "proof".

In other words, he was highly uneducated and abysmal in his profundity.

minimalist · 8 August 2006

Note that Yehuda Freeman has never said that reading these particular mystical works will result in questions being answered. Only that the questions "would disappear". Sounds ominous.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not so much "ominous" as "cult-like", which is no surprise coming from a Lubavitcher. Problem is, cult recruitment really doesn't work so well on an impersonal format like the internet. You have to personally find an emotionally troubled person, lure him into the Crazy Van and bombard him with propaganda. So yes, questions will 'disappear' but that's more due to poor air circulation, food deprivation, and general bombardment with silly nonsense, than the provision of an actual answer to any question.

Anonymous_Coward · 8 August 2006

One thing I have discovered however, is that the level of intelligence demonstrated by real Hassidic scholars far exceeds that of secular scholars to the point of not even being comparable.

As anyone here knows, intelligence (at least the opinion of) is a very relative thing. Compared to you, of course they seem intelligent. People who buy get-rich-quick books thinks the author must be so intelligent. Your comparison is moot because it is obvious you have never read anything by a secular scholar in your life. What's more, you are comparing writings on religious matters, then point to secular scholars as being idiots for not writing on religious matters. Then, there's another way of perceiving intelligence. Among the ignorant masses, "intelligent" is someone who says something you agree with. --- Did Yehuda give his qualifications and education yet? I did as he requested of me and it doesn't seem fair that he goes back on his promise.

Carol Clouser · 8 August 2006

William Emba wrote:

"Almost unanimously, the rest of the Orthodox Jewish community did not consider him to be a profound thinker. What little I've read by him has left me underwhelmed."

He was a very controversial figure and many disagreed with him. But I have yet to encounter anyone who knew about him who would claim that he was anything but a profound thinker.

You are missing out on some great stuff if you have read little by him. Try LIKUTEI SICHOS, of which there are 38 volumes (latest count), especially his analysis of Rashi's commentary. Some of that stuff will leave you shaking your head in amazement at how incisive the human mind can be.

William E Emba · 8 August 2006

He was a very controversial figure and many disagreed with him. But I have yet to encounter anyone who knew about him who would claim that he was anything but a profound thinker.
— Carol Clouser

I have met many who know about him, and amongst the non-Lubavitchers, not one of them has ever given him the least credit in the thinking department.

You are missing out on some great stuff if you have read little by him. Try LIKUTEI SICHOS,...

I have. The little I looked at was underwhelming.

Henry J · 8 August 2006

Why would somebody want questions to disappear, anyway? Generally people prefer to get answers rather than to forget there was a question to start with.

Henry

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

The glowing claims about Schneerson are quite similar to Scientologists' claims about Hubbard.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

I love this bit from www.virtualjewishlibrary.org:

With the fall of communism and the miracles during the gulf war, the Rebbe stated that these are heralding a time of peace and tranquillity for all mankind, the time of Moshiach (messiah).

The miracles during the gulf war? Peace and tranquillity for all mankind? I'm shaking my head in amazement at how delusional the human mind can be.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

Here's some of the work of that "incisive mind": http://www.noahide.com/rebbe.htm A bunch of mumbo jumbo that illustrates the mind as a meme processing machine that can operate at a considerable distance from external reality. But I was struck by this brilliant gem of ironic comedy:

I have insisted again and again not to pay attention to any rumors about what I allegedly have said. Only my written statements are to be believed. --Paraphrase of well-known warning by the Rebbe

Grey Wolf · 9 August 2006

Did Yehuda give his qualifications and education yet? I did as he requested of me and it doesn't seem fair that he goes back on his promise.
— anonymous_coward

I believe he may think that he did in this post: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/will_dembski_ha.html#comment-117298 He didn't give any detail beyond the fact that he spent some time at "Universities" before going head into a rant about his religious conversion. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf