Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

... Can you really imagine for a second that studying and understanding those won't help (or hasn't already helped) us make medical breakthroughs?

I can imagine a lot of things. What I have difficulty imagining is why the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover.

 

[articulett]

Ditto. -- off to check out IIDB!

Well, I for one, will miss you should you post less here.

--but I heartily encourage those who find this place like the KKK (or whatever) to scurry along and find a forum where others seem to understand them. No use attempting to converse with people who do not comprehend you.

If it's just the flames that bother you, you can put the people you don't want to read on ignore. And, of course, I include myself in that as well (not that I have a choice on who puts me on ignore.) Besides, without the flames, would we have the chance to read the gems that Mercutio and Dr. A? You can then engage in debate with those whom you are eager to debate with and others can still learn from what you have to say--which, by the way, I often find insightful, interesting,--and just plain funny. Your contract response in particular regarding transfer of ownership of Language Awards was particularly great.

I know I overly enjoy the power of flaming on occasion, because in real life, I don't have the protection of cyberspace and so I only talk about the blowhards behind their back (I'm small; they are off kilter). But creationists, in general, have abused the public trust as badly as Sylvia Browne and then run and hid behind obfuscating language and holier than though platitudes while demonising the most profoundly useful and well supported and breathtakingly marvelous scientific understanding of our time (evolution); moreover, they've made other people fear it and doubt it and doubt science while offering not a single piece of useful scientific data in return. People praise non existent entities while demonising those who have brought forth all the technology and medicine and useful information that we use in our day to day lives. And this isfascinating data that anyone can check out the evidence for themselves. But creationists teach that faith (not facts) are a good way to know something while emphasizing that science can't explain everything (as if creationism or epistemological arguments can explain ANYTHING.)

As for "The Atheist"--I suggest "ignore". I think it was Paul Provenza who said, "I've met a lot of smart theists...and a whole lot of dumb theists...but I have never met a dumb atheist." I thought "the Atheist" was the exception--but he is clearly a liar...or maybe just mentally akimbo--and so I suspect that he is not an atheist--but some sort of Theist bent on given atheists a bad name by being a particular egregious example of humanity while disguised as an "an Atheist". I know you think this is unlikely, but that is probably because you are honest. The more you read the writings of "annoying creationists", the more you'll see the incredible deceits they will engage in so that someone might find them other than the woos that they are.

If you want to see a stellar example, then Behe's testimony in the Dover trial is priceless. Moving goal posts and changing definition and obfuscating all in the name of his "intelligent designer" which could (wink, wink) be an alien. Read about the wedge strategy and it will drive the point home. Some people clearly pretend to want to debate, but have to capacity for doing so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So what great results has your "intelligent design" hypothesis brought to this planet except to make arrogant and ignorant individuals who think they are more moral because they've been able to find credibility in an absolutely unbelievable and rather barbaric and nonsensical myth? Does it have a single breakthrough going for it. Does any creationist "hypothesis"?

The creationist contribution to medicine:

* Eating magic apples is bad for your health.
* Don't take dietary advice from talking snakes.
* Er ...
* ... that's it.

 

[articulett]

So yeah, I agree this thread has become a bit of an insult fest. Let's calm down a bit and get back to the subject(s) at hand, assuming there are any subjects anyone cares to discuss. It's also become a bit of repeat theatre.

~~ Paul

Oh come on Paul... you know you enjoy drawing forth creationists and then slowly slaying them with things like facts, reason, and a touch of sarcasm. It is somewhat sporting to watch them implode as they everlastingly pretend that they have knowledge that everyone else is too stupid to understand.

That is a big difference between scientists and creationists. The former want the facts tested and tested and tested...it's the way we learn more and learn how strong the information is. Creationists just want to try and cripple evolution--but they never ever offer up any counter explanation for us to examine, test, and poke at. Isn't that exactly what your first post on this thread was a link to?

Yet their tenacity can be entertaining. And you've gotta love the way they continue to post on a skeptics forum while telling us all how stupid and dogmatic and arrogant skeptics are. If they don't like the party here, why don't they check out the one down the street? (Perhaps it's because they are well aware that their wisdom is not in as great a demand as they pretend.)

 

[Mercutio]

I can imagine a lot of things. What I have difficulty imagining is why the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover.

Not "uncover". "Depend on" was the phrase, and it does. The example already given you (which you rejected) was only recently uncovered, but reflects millions of years of evolution, and would not have been discovered were it not for knowing where to look. The knowledge of where to look, of course, came from the Theory of Evolution.

You may disagree, but in my book, such a discovery can very accurately be described as depending on millions of years of evolution.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The knowledge that tuberculosis is descended from soil bacteria led directly to the discovery of the first antibiotics.

---

Oh, I nearly forgot. Another great creationist contribution to medical science:

* Anaesthesia is sinful, since it contradicts God's will as expressed in Genesis 3.

The City of Zurich initially outlawed anaesthesia altogether. "Pain is a natural and intended curse of the primal sin. Any attempt to do away with it must be wrong", averred the Zurich City Fathers

...

In Scotland, Sir James Young Simpson (1811-1870), eloquent advocate of chloroform anaesthesia and pioneer of painless delivery in childbirth, offended various Calvinist Scots by his presumption. For did not Genesis 3:16 declare: "Unto the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children'"? Religious traditionalists held that mothers ought to fulfil the "edict of bringing forth children in sorrow" as laid down in the Holy Bible. Simpson was accordingly denounced by a vocal minority of ministers and priests as a blaspheming heretic who uttered words put into his mouth by Satan. [see Triumph over Pain by René Fülöp-Miller, New York Library Guild, 1938]. One clergyman saw the new chloroform anaesthesia as "a decoy from Satan, apparently offering to bless woman; but, in the end, it will harden society and rob God of the deep earnest cries, which arise in time of trouble for help." God's reaction to being robbed of the cries of women in labour is not on record; but there were mutterings that infants delivered painlessly should be denied the sacrament of baptism. This never came to pass: mid-Victorian religious opposition to anaesthesia was neither as widespread nor as organised as some historians were later to suggest. Yet a hostile reaction to human tampering with the God-given order of things hadn't always been empty rhetoric. In the text of his A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896), A.D. White relates how "as far back as the year 1591, Eufame Macalyane, a lady of rank, being charged with seeking the aid of Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the time of the birth of her two sons, was burned alive on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh; and this old theological view persisted even to the middle of the nineteenth century."

...

In The Lancet 2 (1849), 537, English doctor Robert Brown explained how God and Nature "walked hand in hand"; painless delivery was an invention of the Devil.

...

Dr William Henry Atkinson, first president of the American Dental Association (ADA), protested, "I think anesthesia is of the devil, and I cannot give my sanction to any Satanic influence which deprives a man of the capacity to recognize the law! I wish there were no such thing as anesthesia. I do not think men should be prevented from passing through what God intended them to endure." *

 

[Jon the Geek]

One request, though.

We're all agreed that the insult-fest is over, but could you please post it in here as I need to have it in a post to copy it into my sig and it's is easily the best I've seen.

Hatred of "The Atheist" is the thing that could finally organize atheists into a unified group.

Dr Adequate and The Atheist sharing a sig? See, it's working already!

 

[The Atheist]

Hatred of "The Atheist" is the thing that could finally organize atheists into a unified group.

Dr Adequate and The Atheist sharing a sig? See, it's working already!

Cheers!

Fast work, eh?

Still have to update the links, though, so give me 10 minutes.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I can imagine a lot of things. What I have difficulty imagining is why the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover.

I described the technique and how it led to new knowledge (my claim was "leads to new knowledge") and cited a magazine where you can find the discoveries (which I don't remember in detail) if you care enough to look back through some issues. Dr Richard posted a link to a more specific example. I repeated the post number where you can find that very easy to find and specific example. Come back with some evidence you've read the link or found the article, your choice.

 

[delphi_ote]

What I have difficulty imagining is why the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover.

Well, being that it took us millions of years to evolve and that pretty much every single medical breakthrough requires us to be around to actually figure it out, I'm afraid all medical breakthroughs require millions of years of evolution to be uncovered.

But I don't think that's what you meant.

 

[articulett]

I can imagine a lot of things. What I have difficulty imagining is why the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover.

Well gee, I mentioned the Rhett syndrome breakthrough http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=A3AEF4A1-E7F2-99DF-396D2736ACA569EB
But how about this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208211323.htm

or this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

Or the hobbit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129171908.htm

or this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129171908.htm

Or this one especially appropos for some on this forum:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208230130.htm

Oh that's right...you can't be bothered to read. You were merely asking an inane question so you can keep saying that wasn't what you meant...the old goalpost game, eh?

Do you realize the the questions you ask make you sound as "off" as Kleinman and "the asstheist"?

 

[articulett]

The creationist contribution to medicine:

* Eating magic apples is bad for your health.
* Don't take dietary advice from talking snakes.
* Er ...
* ... that's it.

Don't bite from the "tree of knowledge"?

Kangaroos came from the middle east via ark?

Pimp out your daughters when men threaten to sodomize your male guests?

Impregnating virgins without their consent is a-okay if you're invisible and "all loving"?

I dunno....maybe you forgot a few.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Missing Creationist

That’s an interesting ribozyme these scientists developed. Would you care to describe a selective process where a molecule like this could evolve?

Hmmm... that was the last post by Doctor Kleinman: 9:00 PM ET Thursday. His last moment logged in was one minute after that. We didn't get his usual Friday "have a nice weekend." I wonder what's up. This thread will not be the same without him.

 

[delphi_ote]

Hmmm... that was the last post by Doctor Kleinman: 9:00 PM ET Thursday. His last moment logged in was one minute after that. We didn't get his usual Friday "have a nice weekend." I wonder what's up. This thread will not be the same without him.

I'm sure he'll be back. Sometimes reality just takes precedence over internet discussions.

 

[Kotatsu]

You would own the award.
A public offer of a reward in return for a member of the public satisfying the conditions of the offer, becomes an executory contract between the offeror and any person who begins performance required by the offer, within a reasonable time in reliance on the public offer.
Here, because the poem was nominated under terms of the offer, prior to transfer of the copyright license to you, Mercutio would be entitled to the benefit of the bargain.
However, because Mercutio expressly stated that he has assigned, not just the copyright license, but also the right to "claim" the poem "as your own," Mercutio has impliedly transferred the right to the executory contract to you
Therefore, you are entitled to any award, even though it is well known that you are not the actual author.
And so on and so forth...

Hooray for law!

 

[Kotatsu]

Should that post win the award (and should I decide I want the prize), I will summon the ghost of my Greek lawyer and her crocodiles. Where there is a will, as they say, there are several lawyers.

Boo for law!

 

[Yahzi]

And I am still waiting for a reply.

I'm sorry. I thought the answer was self-evident.

Yes, I do think that metaphysical naturalism has been adequate so far to explain every facet of human existance.

Now would you care to answer more than "Dunno?"

Edit: You might also suggest some area of human experience that is not, in your opinion, explainable by naturalism.

 

[Yahzi]

<snip>

The majority of your post contained no substance.

See, again you struggle with such simple language! We're discussing ACHIEVEMENTS. You haven't had any, Popper has. It's really very simple once you grasp the concept.

I understand that Popper has a list of achievements. What I don't understand is why that is relevant.

Insults? I haven't made an insult as far as I can tell. I'm just pointing out your very obvious deficiencies, so if you find that insulting, brush up on those weaknesses!

If you think your post was not insulting, you may want to ask for some help with your writing skills.

Being wrong does not make one an idiot.

Being egregiously wrong does. But of course, you have not read the linked book which makes the case for Popper's egregiousness. Rather than actually discuss why one might think Popper was egregiously wrong, you have preferred to talk about his social honors and issue insults.

 

[hammegk]

... Come back with some evidence you've read the link or found the article, your choice.

Sorry, that's not the way it works. Ya'll made the claim; either back it up, or agree it was (and is) armwaving bs -- which I'm becoming more and more inclined to consider it.

Others may be begin to wonder why "the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And others will wonder why you didn't just open the link Dr Richard posted.