Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh dear, he cites a whole variety of sources from professional writers and historians. I don't think any attempt to undermine the credibility of the author is likely to save your game now and I suspect that its simply arrogance and wounded pride that is preventing you from accepting reality.
Actually your site is from an amateur historian who himself claims the figure is a low estimate. Keep trying though.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnother vain and scurrilous misrepresentation of the facts and propagandising of a non reality. I did not lose any earthquake debate, that fact of the matter is that the twentieth century witnessed some truly devastating earthquakes. Also I have established that the 19th century was less murderous. I have produced figures from various sources and you keep pandering your opinion as if it has any efficacy in itself. You keep attempting to take elements out of context as if it somehow refutes the claim that the 20th century was was the same as every other epoch, and to any rational well informed person its simply nonsense!!! I mock you and your pretensions.
The problem with the score you've put down is that you've forgotten you lost the argument about earthquakes, which the thread started with, and you haven't established that the 19th Century was less murderous than the 20th since childhood mortality contributed significantly to deaths in the 19th. The site gives total deaths in the 19th Century as 4.287 ...[text shortened]... trated an unprecedented rise in either the number of wars or the number of people killed in war.
Genghis Khan - Fail - the figures are widely erratic, based on preposterous estimations and include deaths from famine disease and natural causes.
Tamerlane - Fail - He is estimated to have killed no more than 12 million persons
The 19th century was as murderous as the 20 century - Fail - only one percent of the population, 2 percent if you count famines was killed, significantly smaller than the 10 percent of the twentieth century.
Earthquakes - Fail - citing the fact that prehistoric periods or other epochs also contained earthquakes does not cannot negate the fact that the twentieth century has seen some truly massive earthquakes in size and destruction.
Once again empiric's has triumphed over mere opinion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe doesn't claim to have an accurate number.
Oh dear, he cites a whole variety of sources from professional writers and historians. I don't think any attempt to undermine the credibility of the author is likely to save your game now and I suspect that its simply arrogance and wounded pride that is preventing you from accepting reality.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe provides figures gleaned from numerous sources, details the events from which the figures are drawn and provides a basis for calculation to make a reasoned estimate. You simply provide your opinion as if it has some efficacy in itself. FAIL!
He doesn't claim to have an accurate number.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to be missing the point: a real god would never have allowed all that vicious carnage to have happened. The fact there was no response from your alleged god proves to ME at least, no god was involved in ANY religion, ALL of them 100% man made.
He provides figures gleaned from numerous sources, details the events from which the figures are drawn and provides a basis for calculation to make a reasoned estimate. You simply provide your opinion as if it has some efficacy in itself. FAIL!
You have to admit even to yourself you KNOW some religions are strictly man made, like Scientology. That should be a crack in your defense of religion, your own religion.
These religions have one huge problem. THEY CAN"T ALL BE RIGHT.
But they sure as hell can ALL be wrong.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is what he says at the bottom of the page:
He provides figures gleaned from numerous sources, details the events from which the figures are drawn and provides a basis for calculation to make a reasoned estimate. You simply provide your opinion as if it has some efficacy in itself. FAIL!
Adding all the events listed here gives a very tentative total of 45 Million unnatural deaths during the 19th Century -- and I probably missed a lot.
In other words, he's saying the 45 million figure should not be used as a reliable total figure but rather as a very conservative lower estimate.
Consider the Taipeng Rebellion, which according to the "best estimate" (Platt, 2012) cost the lives of between 20 and 30 million people. Multiply by two to correct for a global population increase and you obtain a figure for the percentage of the world population killed on par with World War 2. And this is just one of many, many conflicts during that century. You may bet World War 1, and I will raise you Napoleonic wars... and the Crimean War, the War of the Triple Alliance (which wiped out a whopping 70% of the adult male population of Paraguay), many, many colonial wars of conquest, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou lost the argument on earthquakes. There has not been an increase in the number of earthquakes that requires explanation. Further, the bulk of war deaths in the twentieth Century happened in its first half. We have a decrease from 1946 onwards. You'd need it to be increasing since then.
Another vain and scurrilous misrepresentation of the facts and propagandising of a non reality. I did not lose any earthquake debate, that fact of the matter is that the twentieth century witnessed some truly devastating earthquakes. Also I have established that the 19th century was less murderous. I have produced figures from various sources and ...[text shortened]... ve earthquakes in size and destruction.
Once again empiric's has triumphed over mere opinion.
Where do you get the 10% for the twentieth century from? Your source is estimating 3.7%. I note that you dismiss the figures for Genghis Khan as they spoil your argument.
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo the scriptures do not say that there would be an increase merely that there would be earthquakes, not even a strawman argument formulated on the basis of assumed values can save you. Ouch! Just hand over your score sheet so I can sign it 1-0.
You lost the argument on earthquakes. There has not been an increase in the number of earthquakes that requires explanation. Further, the bulk of war deaths in the twentieth Century happened in its first half. We have a decrease from 1946 onwards. You'd need it to be increasing since then.
Where do you get the 10% for the twentieth century from? ...[text shortened]... mating 3.7%. I note that you dismiss the figures for Genghis Khan as they spoil your argument.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is from your OP -
No the scriptures do not say that there would be an increase merely that there would be earthquakes, not even a strawman argument formulated on the basis of assumed values can save you. Ouch! Just hand over your score sheet so I can sign it 1-0.
Now, because birth pains begin small and then increase in intensity and frequency, this passage can be interpreted to mean that earthquakes (and famines - caused primarily through lack of rainfall in certain areas) will increase both in frequency and impact/strength prior to Jesus’ second coming.
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes but this was later retracted when i examined the scriptures and came to the realisation that it mentions nothing about their accelerated frequency. If you search the thread you will find it, too bad for you, oh well, poor atheistic saplings, outsmarted again. never the less, lets consider the data,
This is from your OP -Now, because birth pains begin small and then increase in intensity and frequency, this passage can be interpreted to mean that earthquakes (and famines - caused primarily through lack of rainfall in certain areas) will increase both in frequency and impact/strength prior to Jesus’ second coming.
The biggest earthquake ever recorded, of magnitude 9.5, happened in 1960 in Chile, at a subduction zone where the Pacific plate dives under the South American plate. The second biggest earthquake had a magnitude 9.2 and happened in 1964 in Alaska, at another subduction zone where the Pacific plate dives under the North American plate. The infamous 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which triggered a devastating tsunami that claimed a quarter million lives, was also at a subduction zone and of a magnitude 9.2.
http://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/what-are-biggest-historical-earthquakes
Oh dear was that 1960, 1965 and 2004, the modern era? that gotta be painful for our atheist nooblings!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo your OP is basically a steaming pile of dung?
yes but this was later retracted when i examined the scriptures and came to the realisation that it mentions nothing about their accelerated frequency. If you search the thread you will find it, too bad for you, oh well, poor atheistic saplings, outsmarted again.