Lying Outright About the Moon Landings.

I’ve used this blog to deal with all sorts of ridiculous claims, dogmas and political crap over the past decade or so. Now my attention turns to lunar landing denialists.

According to these lunatics, NASA faked the moon landings as part of a vast conspiracy. Why they would ever claim such a thing is a mystery to me, but I guess some people just take comfort in believing that humans are simply not capable of achieving such feats. They need to grow up.

For the latest manifestation of such insanity, read this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/20/apollo-moon-landing-was-faked-conspiracy-theorists-claim-with-new-photo.html

Continue reading

Advertisements

My words are going VIRAL!

When I started this blog about a decade ago, I always hoped it would be a useful reference for people seeking credible arguments about science, religion, politics, and other social issues, backed with a consistent ethical standard. Little did I know just how far my words would travel!

Recently, other bloggers that are critics of the Baha’i Faith have begin taking my words and directly posting them onto their own blogs and even on one video on YouTube, much to my astonishment.

First the video, based on Four Ways to Create a Religion of Hypocrites

Which also appears here:  http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2016/12/4-ways-to-create-religion-of-hypocrites.html

The original blog entry was copied here:  http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/07/four-ways-to-create-religion-of.html

That same blog also reposted several other blog entries of mine:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2010/07/fatal-flaw-in-bahai-authority.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/10/universal-house-of-international.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/07/equality-of-sexes-not-in-bahai-faith.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/10/bahai-scandals.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-i-abandoned-haifan-bahai-faith.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2016/04/dale-husbands-battle-on-amazon-with.html

When it comes to faithfulness and accuracy in quoting my writings, ‘s blog is indeed the best. Others, not so much.

Here are other examples of blog entries elsewhere that got it right, mostly:

https://thebahaiinsider.com/2017/03/05/why-i-abandoned-the-haifan-bahai-faith-extract-from-dale-husbands-blog/

https://thebahaiinsider.com/2015/11/02/some-interesting-bahai-scandals/

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/independent-investigation-truth-baha%E2%80%99i-case-hypocrisy

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/fatal-flaw-baha%E2%80%99i-authority

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/why-i-abandoned-haifan-baha%E2%80%99i-faith

Another blogger, Ed Darrell, referred to one of my early statements on climate change, which is an even bigger issue to me than the Baha’i Faith:

https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/astounding-manipulation-of-data-from-the-climate-denialists/

Which actually came from here:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

And loooooong before any of that, one of my oldest online friends referred to my blog here:

https://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/fundamentalism-second-take/

Which came from here:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/religious-fundamentalism-is-blasphemy/

Earlier, he made this:  https://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/science-can-it-dictate-ethics/

Which referred to this: https://dalehusband.com/2007/07/21/three-opponents-three-different-results/

Which is also more important in some ways than criticizing the Baha’i Faith.

Greens have limited credibility

So now it is official: Not only has Hillary Clinton secured the Democratic nomination at last, but even her fierce rival Bernie Sanders has publicly endorsed her. The fighting among Democrats is over.

However, some diehard Bernie supporters refuse to vote for Clinton and may instead vote for the Green Party, which is indeed more progressive than most Democrats are.

I like most of what the Greens stand for, but there is one point that I strongly disagree with them on.

http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare

Greens support a wide range of health care services, not just traditional medicine, which too often emphasizes “a medical arms race” that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.

Unfortunately, most forms of “alternative” medicine are called that precisely because they have not been fully tested and confirmed to work via scientific methods. To illustrate the danger of being willing to uncritically trust such things, read this:

An Explanation About Science

One of the things people need to understand about science is that it is not like a buffet restaurant where you can pick and choose what scientific ideas and products you can accept or reject. You either accept it all or you are not thinking scientifically.

Here’s another questionable part of the Greens’ platform:

http://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability/#esAgriculture

We urge the banning of sewage sludge or hazardous wastes as fertilizer, and of irradiation and the use of genetic engineering in all food production. (Emphasis mine)

Genetic engineering itself is neither good nor bad, so banning the procedure completely is nonsense. We need to judge all such issues on a case by case basis.

The Greens need to modify their platform by removing these controversial and inappropriate statements if they expect to keep my support. Otherwise, I will just return to voting a straight Democratic ticket this November.

The Possible Role of Nondisjunction in Evolution

A common objection to natural selection as the mechanism for evolution is that while it may act as an editor, it cannot be an author. That is, it may change genetic information through mutation, but it cannot cause genetic information to increase. And they are right, but genetic information can still increase across the generations of organisms through a process called nondisjunction. This occurs when an unequal amount of genetic material is passed on to two daughter cells after the process of a cell dividing. One cell will have slightly less genetic material, and the other will have slightly more. The most famous example of nondisjunction is the kind that causes Down’s Syndrome, when a human embryo receives three 21st chromosomes from its parents rather than the normal number of two. But nondisjunction can occur regarding any chromosome in any organism and may not even involve chromosomes at all, such as in the case of bacteria.

Let us imagine that three billion years ago, a bacterial cell was dividing, but because of a chemical malfunction, slightly less genetic material ended up in one daughter cell, and slightly more in the other. The cell with less material will probably end up smaller, while the cell with more material may end up larger, because a greater amount of genetic material can produce a greater amount of proteins, the molecules that provide the structural basis for all organisms. Larger cells (assuming the reproductive potential of the different cells was the same) would have an advantage over smaller cells in the race to gain food, thus natural selection would favor larger cells.

If this process was repeated many times, then it is possible that over a billion years a bacterial cell would have emerged that had hundreds of times more genetic material than the first primitive organisms that arose on Earth about four billion years ago. And that would have enabled the evolution of more complex organisms than bacteria…including us!

Vaccines and the failure of doing research on the internet

Reality trumps any number of fallacious arguments made to support a preconceived position based on one or more lies. This is why I am a hard-core empiricist and reject the philosophical school of rationalism, which claims that human reason alone can produce truth. Instead, it has only produced conflict.

Continue reading

Copyright abuse

First, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet[citation needed]. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries, was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

Takedown notice

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand’s copyright act,[25] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse.[26] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), “were not valid copyright claims.”[27]

The original purpose of copyright laws was to protect creativity by allowing artists, both of visual arts and music, to make their fair share of money from selling their own creations. It is certainly unethical for anyone to claim another’s original work as his own and then make a profit from that work being sold.

Too often, however, what happens is that people wanting to censor a viewpoint they find offensive make claims based on their interpretation of the DMCA to claim copyright infringement that is not valid or, even if technically valid, really is not fair at all.

Here is a perfect example. Watch this video by YouTube user cdk007:

Did you enjoy it? Maybe if you were a younger person you were bored by the classical music track that was used for it. But in fact, that was not the original music that was used for the video. Instead, cdk007 used this music first:

That DOES sound 100% better, in my opinion. But soon after cdk007 posted the video about evolution, he was slapped with a DMCA takedown notice and he was forced to replace the soundtrack. But he never claimed the song “Jesus of Suburbia” was his creation, nor did he make money from that video. I doubt that Green Day, the artist that made the song, was to blame for what happened, it seems so unlike them!

What happened in this case was de facto censorship. The DMCA actually SUPPRESSES creativity and freedom of speech and it should be repealed.