I’ve just stolen borrowed this image from the list universe.
I bet you can see a figure in it. This proves that tiny one-dimensional imps live on paper……
The press, tv and BBC are presenting a ludicrous Rorschach-style interpretation of a rock shape on Mars as a creature from an alien race. I suppose it’s equally as convincing as the Biblical characters who crop up on tortillas.
(At least it doesn’t carry some extra miracle baggage, unless someone has already seen it as a superhuman being.)
There is confusing post on HJHOP about evil midwives. What? What? I’ve never before met anyone with a bad word to say about midwives. (They would be the Mother Teresas of the health services, if you just count the public admiration and ignore all the actually unplesant things about Mother Teresa)
I assume it’s a spoof. I realise it isn’t. I read it to try to understand what anyone could have against midwives. He’s even turned off comments, hence this post. Then I see it’s another of those transatlantic definition issues.
Obviously US and UK midwives are so different that we are referring to completely different jobs when we think of “midwives”. UK midwives are the experts in childbirth. Some work in hospitals or ante-natal units, some provide home care. They can basically do pretty well anything at a birth except the really surgical stuff. They are much more skilled and qualified at delivering babies than most doctors.
There are both male and female midwives. It’s not a “girl power” thing, ffs, HJ. (That’d be like the obstetric equivalent of dental nurses having to be tooth-fairy worshippers.)
It’s a medical specialty. For the benefit of you former-tea-tax dodgers 🙂 Americans, English midwives must spend years in professional and practical training. In fact I think (possibly wrongly) that they can’t even start to train in their specialty until they’ve trained and practised as nurses. They don’t operate out of the backs of trailers.
Yes, a fair number of midwives actively favour minimising unnecessary medical intervention (the complete lack of success of which perspective is shown by the ever-rising numbers of caesarian births) but any of them would be in pretty deep dogdoo if they failed to get a dangerous case properly treated.
And, blow me down with a gas and air canister, they do have access to heart monitors, anaesthesia, scanners, medicines and the full range of hi-tech birth requisites.
It looks as if midwives are completely different in the USA. HJHop talks about them offering “empowering experiences” and “bringing woolly hats”. The sort of people HJHop is talking about sound like alternative health practitioners – at best, birth coaches, at worst charlatans.
But then, there is no mileage in amateurs charging people for inexpert birth-help in a country where you can get the real thing free from teams that always consist of doctors AND midwives. *smug smirk of person who has access to free healthcare*
The Pope is setting up crack exorcism squads to deal with the growing problem of demonic possession, ac Ruth Gledhill. He wants every parish to have its own exorcism expert. Maybe they can combine the job with the other newly-created role of person who prays to rid the church of paedophiles otherwise the Catholic Church’s parish wages bill may go through the roof.
Some priests have long been quite keen to take the Pope’s advice and follow Bill Murray’s example, according to the Independent in 2000.
We’ve never been busier, says official church exorcist
The Inquisition was just a warm-up then?
Apparently, the Chief Exorcist blamed New Age crackpottery for the rise in demonic possession caes. I assume the exorcism rites are based on traditional “Set a thief to catch a thief” principle, so I will forbear from mentioning the equally traditional pots and kettles.
Let’s hope that the Christian churches draw back before following the example of Matthew Arnold, self appointed Witchfinder General. A recent Discovery channel TV programme (well I saw it recently) discussed some of the marvels of witch-finding that he achieved. He got very wealthy, very quickly, as a result of being so good at detecting people in league withe devil.
Torture was illegal, so Hopkins and his colleagues used other methods to encourage their suspects to confess. They were made to sit on a stool for 24 hours or more with no sleep, while ‘watchers’ observed in case their ‘imps’ appeared. With serious sleep deprivation is it any wonder that women confessed to consorting with the devil? Ducking was another favourite way of testing a witch. If she drowned she was innocent, if she lived she was guilty and then hanged.
Hmm, some modern governments are really quite attentive students of history then.
People enjoy wine more if they believe it costs more, according to a California Institute of Technology experiment that was widely reported today. The BBC put this politely as having shown that people enjoyed the supposedly more expensive wine more.
This wasn’t just due to people pretending to have a more sophisticated palate, either, as it was observed on brain scans that “pleasure centres” in the brain were more activated.
If the pop science reports are right, this was a very elegant experiment, so simple and easy to repeat, but suggesting so many wider avenues for investigation beyond the taste of wines..
It’s an illuminating reminder that so many of our pleasures are experienced only because of the value that others put on things. There is no simple nature-culture divide. We perceive what other people have allowed us to perceive. We value things that we are led to see as valuable – obviously making us suckers for advertising, as well as eager consumers of a whole range of cultural fables and moral values. Social values are somehow integrated into our biology.
Despite the evidence of the senses, there is a claim that intelligence is increasing. What? Well IQ scores are supposed to be increasing. A thought-provoking blog on Comment-is-Free discusses this idea and refers to a recent book by Flynn who identified what is called the Flynn effect.
There is much discussion on Wikipedia and elsewhere about possible reasons for the effect, some of them very plausible – such as Flynn’s own argument that rises have taken place only in the area of hypothetical thinking and reflect technological development. This is very interesting (the effect of cultural change on cognitive skills.)
I just doubt if IQ scores can really provide evidence that people are getting smarter,
IQ? The whole concept has a historically-based whiff of spuriousness (unjustified claims of cultural-neutrality, invention of the evidence, use to justify racist and sexist ideas, basis for divisive forms of educational selection, etc.) This spuriousness can’t be dispelled by adding in even more dubious extra “intelligences” to console those who score badly on the main tests.
All the same, used by scientists, with regards to the fact that the scores follow a mean distribution curve, they can tell us things about how able people are at showing specific skills. The main skill required is knowing how to pass them. There is nothing wrong with a test that works like this. The waters just get muddied by us all assuming that they reflect anything else than performance on a narrow set of indicator questions, when these are presented in a particular way.
Like crosswords. Cryptic crosswords defeated me, as a child, until someone explained that you just need to get used to the ways of thinking needed to do them. With knowledge of a few simple rules and a certain level of aptitude for making verbal associations, they become easy. Did I get cleverer in the short time between having no idea how to do crosswords and actually getting great pleasure from the works of Aruacaria? Far from it.
IQ tests are devised by humans. Are the people who sets them all geniuses? They must have superhuman IQs. They know ALL the answers. Who are these gods amongst us? They even possess the keys to knowing what intelligence is. Or, at least, if we think IQ really measures “intelligence”, we must take it that these really are the cleverest people on the planet.
They are academics. No surprises that IQ tests seem to work best as predictors of how someone will perform in a formal academic setting, then. As I said earlier, this would be fine, if we just stopped there and didn’t assume the tests can tell us about “intelligence” itself.
Pop science has helped to spread the idea that IQ tests measure intelligence. Helen Joyce, who wrote the CIF post, said:
The Flynn effect throws up some startling paradoxes. If, as seems to be the case, the average person from 1900 would score around 70 on a modern-day IQ test – which would put them on track for a diagnosis of mental retardation….
Wait a minute. IQ scores get standardised round 100. The distribution of scores follows a bell-shaped curve. The average score in 1900 would be, wait for it,…. 100.
Were IQ tests even invented in 1900? Not according to Wikipedia.
The term “IQ,” a translation of the German Intelligenz-Quotient, was coined by the German psychologist William Stern in 1912 as a proposed method of scoring early modern children’s intelligence tests such as those developed by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in the early 20th Century.
The first Binet test was produced in 1905. Hmm. In 1900, no one had seen an IQ test because there wasn’t one.
Is this pop-science idea the outcome of some deranged thought experiment, in which we have to imagine both the IQ performance of dead people and a variation in the whole way of working the scores out?
The attempt to look at changes in IQ scores over time can have some comical results.
Neisser estimates that if you extrapolate beyond the data, which shows a 21 point gain between 1952 and 1982, an even larger gain of 35 IQ points can be argued, however Arthur Jensen warns that extrapolating beyond the data leads to results such as an IQ of -1000 for Aristotle (even assuming he would have scored 200 in his day
There are ways to compare scores over time, if you use actual tests and record the results. These should all show a mean of 100 though, so it’s only changes in the shape of distribution curve that would have any explanatory value and these changes are likely to be limited.
Getting people of different ages to do the same tests comes up against the possible effects of changes in the brain over time. In any case, the academic basis of the test questions would depress the scores of older people who were educated in different topics and were not practised in academic thinking.
Getting younger people to do both old and new tests then comparing the scores would tell us more about the part that general social levels of knowledge play in the tests than it would about the intelligence of the test subjects. In any case, surely the scores on the old tests would have to be normalised to 100, so we’d still only be able to spot changes in the bell-shape…….?
1930s research done by Luria, a Soviet-era psychologist, was quoted by Flynn. Central Asian peasants’ answers to “IQ” type questions designed to identify their thinking processes supposedly showed Luria that they thought practically rather than hypothetically. Read the extract on CIF and the image of a peasant (at the time when Stalin was hammering the agrarian sector) stonewalling a potential government spy just leaps out at you. White bear/black bear? 🙂
It certainly does show a much higher level of practical intelligence than Luria seems aware. Practical political intelligence. Plus a fair amount of hidden hypothetical reasoning. Rather than some mentally bound peasant incapacity to think beyond the present, as Luria seemed to imply.
Almost ironically, it seems that Luria learned some lessons about the value of adopting “practical” thought processes pretty quickly. He soon had to make some drastic career changes to avoid Stalin’s attentions. Post-war, he tried to get back into neuro-surgery but
“His plans were interrupted for several years when he was removed from the Institute of Neurosurgery during a period of particularly virulent anti-semitic repression.”
My point here is that Luria was obviously hugely more academically skilled than the central Asian peasant. so he assumed that his thought processes were somehow more advanced. He didn’t credit the peasants with the same capacities for critical thinking as himself because his own social/cultural biases limited his interpretations of the evidence. We all do it, including the interpretors of IQ tests.
Wow. Mention “Darwin” and the fundie-fools really do come crawling out of the woodwork. Recently ABC news had a fairly bland article about Evolution and it has drawn some mind-boggling responses. It seems that evolution is one of those topics which people feel eminently qualified to talk about, despite having no knowledge or understanding. People (sadly atheists as well as theists) seem to think that science is not a process of rational inquiry but is simply a collection of rag tag ideas where everyone’s opinion has equal validity. Wrong doesn’t do it justice.
First up is “Jerry Nendel” who gets us of to fantastic start with this:
One simple question. How did mammals manage to survive while they waited for the complex design of procreation to “evolve”. Global warming people are saying that mammal species are now dying out because they can’t evolve fast enough to cope with the 1/4 degree increase in temperature, but somehow they managed the other.
No really. This is actually exactly what the comment reads. Obviously Jerry doesn’t know the first thing about evolution – thinks mammals are older than reproduction and has some serious dislike for climate change. A proper two in one nutter here. Until recently, I had considered emigrating to the US, but now I fear for the education my children will receive.
Jerry’s brainwave is followed by someone called “Realist” who claims to fear for the US and says it is a laughing stock amongst developed nations. Ironically, this generates two responses which are so funny I have to put them in full:
@Jerry Nendel:
We are the advanced nation.
Posted by: Jerry Nendel is a moron | Jan 3, 2008 4:28:35 PM
That comment was meant for Realist.
Posted by: Sorry Jerry Nendel | Jan 3, 2008 4:30:03 PM
Ouch. It would have been nowhere near as funny if the idiot hadn’t made such a hash of the attempted claim to America’s advancement.
“Scott” chimes in with the tiresome:
We came from monkeys. LOL Whoever believes that must have the intellect of monkeys, so maybe they just evolved.
Just another idiot parroting out something his pastor said which made him chuckle. Shame on him. He is not alone though:
“Cliff”
If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?? If I am wrong for believing in God, oh well. If the atheists are wrong, well, Hell.
Blimey two false statements in one. First off only a total retard would think evolution suggests humans evolved from monkeys. Secondly, Pascals Wager is wrong. If Cliff is wrong, Allah will punish him for eternity, Thor will not allow him to feast at the great table (etc). Sadly this isn’t even original idiocy.
“Benjamin” at least has some form of rationale to present (even if it is wrong, which it is):
Sad that people still believe in evolution. It’s a scientific community that is desperate to prove that it is still in control and that absolutely everything can be proved by experimentation. As a student of science and a student of the Bible, I see absolutely no reason why true science and religion don’t harmonize. It’s those so-called ‘creationists’ who advocate the Earth was created in six, literal, 24 hour days that do much discredit to people who believe in creation. Yes, evolution in general is indisputable, since germs and viruses evolve and so forth. But human evolution? Impossible. Impossible to the nth degree.
You know what? I agree creationists do much to discredit those who believe in creation. However, believing in creation is the main flaw. For a “student of science” to claim evolution is “impossible to the nth degree” there must be some alternative meaning to the words I am not privy to.
Cliff F brings in the Christian persecution complex:
It is always interesting to me, that I am considered a kook, for believing in God. But, the evolutionists are considered “sane”, for their beliefs. Do you really believe that the earth and everything on it (including man), just developed as a coincidence? That it all happened just by chance? What are the odds of that happening? ASTRONOMICAL!!
Here we see a prime example of someone not knowing what they are talking about, but still talking about it. Cliff bandies words such as “beliefs” “coincidence” “chance” and “odds” without having any real idea what they mean or how they relate to the scientific theory of evolution.
In a universe, astronomical odds are pretty low…
Sadly the odds of this thread on ABC getting stranger (and further from any real definition of “correct) are already low. Jim Strawn chimes in with this bit of madness: [emphasis mine]
The matter is far from settled. Evidence for a created, young earth is also mounting rapidly from Astronomy, Geology, Genetics, Physics and other fields. Both sides of the debate have the same facts to deal with and are both left with difficult questions. This booklet speaks of Evolution as if there were no difficulties, comparing Evolution to something so observable as Gravity. It also speaks of Evolution and Natural Selection as synonymous, but can Evolution explain such difficulties as the sheer number of unlikely beneficial mutations required to form a single anatomical addition? Ultimately, either side is left with evidence, observations, and preconceived ideas. Each side must answer this plain question: “Were you there?” Frankly, I’m disappointed with the NAS.
WTF! What evidence from Astronomy, Geology, Genetics, Physics or any other field is “rapidly mounting” to support YEC? Lying for Jesus is still lying. The “both sides” fallacy is getting annoying but the real weirdness is how this loon wants the final decision made. What the **** does he mean “were you there?” Is he saying the (ahem) testimony of the bible counts as evidence the world was created by God 6000 years ago? Sadly, we have no written testimony from Adam and Even and not even YECs have a young enough Earth to have been around at its creation, so I think we have to go with the scientific evidence. It overwhelms the supposed testimony of the bible. If this was a court of law, the forensic evidence would outweigh the, frankly dodgy, witness testimony and the bible would be sentenced to hard time.
The entire medical profession is shamed by this nutter: [emphasis mine]
The next BIG Bang event to happen will be Christ returning. As a Doctor anyone who can look at the human body with its DNA and the complex being that we are and think this happened by chance and not design skipped thier Bio classes. We find a fossil of a fish with legs on this same website they are showing you pictures of conjoined twins skeletons so in 100 years will people think we all had two heads. One fossil makles a nice museum peice 1000 makes an argument.
Yeah, I would really like to visit this crank next time I have a viral or bacterial infection… Especially as the retard can’t write…
More stupidity:
There are enough holes in evolution to drive a mack truck through it. But this isn’t a battle between evolution and Intelligent Design or evolution and Creationism anyway. This is really a battle of worldviews – the atheistic/materialistic/naturalist worldview and the theistic worldview.
Hmmm. Wrong. Next.
Evolution??? Evolution is a THEORY.
You are welcome to your theory. So are those that believe, or in other words, have a theory that God created man.Common sense rules out evolution.
Natural selection would dictate that only a few select species would survive.
Why don’t pigs fly or talk. Why just monkies able to “evolve”.
Why science has observed is ADAPTATION.
There is zero evidence, or observation oof one species becoming a more acompletely new advanced species.
Argh. What a blinding indictment of the education system. I can only pray to Toutatis that this retard is home schooled and only has access to a computer as part of his rehabilitation classes. This makes my head spin with its retarded nature. “Common sense” is a great buzzword for the loonies who seem to ignore the fact that “common sense” is a poor thing for looking at anything outside the scale of spending an hour in your garage. What freak taught this retard only monkeys could evolve? The adaptation sentence is too incoherent for me to work out what he even wants to say. Finally he finishes with an appeal to personal ignorance. Aren’t these people great.
What about this for weirdly insane: [emphasis mine]
As a dog owner, I can tell you that my dog is very intelligent but did not evolve from any cells of a creature that man did. Evolution is fine but only after stating that all was created and allowed to evolve by the Creator and not chance. Man’s mind should show people how man is nowhere near related to animals.
Mind boggling. It is really making my head spin that this person has an animal in his house and is still blind to the obvious. Wow. I worry for the world.
I will stop now, but may return to this later when I get over the headache these early posts have made (plus I want to try and respond on the ABC site as well. Before I go, this final quote, from jmac0011:
Evolution=more $$$$$ for the Liberals.
Gosh. What more needs to be said…
(hat tip: FSTDT)
Well, on this blog we have often tried to point out that a conglomeration of atheists is no likely to be more intelligent, more sane, more rational than any other grouping (*), but recently we have had a fair bit of evidence that being an “atheist” says very little about a person. Atheism is an open club, there are no vows you have to take (**), there is no entry test and it is pretty much all self-certified – if you say you are an atheist, you are an atheist. There is no doctrine atheists must follow, no common political ideology and, sadly, no reasons that any particular atheist should be even remotely scientifically literate (for example Al Kafir Akbar, discussed previously). Everyone is born an atheist, some are converted to a religion then escape, others just remain atheists.
It seems we have a new entry to the ranks of literate but scientifically challenged atheist. Brendan O’Neill is the person who claims to be an “avowed atheist” and is “as atheistic as it gets.” I have no idea how Brendan sees there being a sliding scale of atheism, it has always struck me as being reasonably black and white(***).
Not content with repeating himself ad nauseam (see heather’s previous posts), writing in CommentIsFree today, Brendan has now joined in on the side of Climate Change Deniers. In a breathtaking display of scientific illiteracy (as well as some apparent linguistic illiteracy), Brendan launches an attack on anthropogenic climate change that would make the discovery institute proud. He seems convinced that his limited reading on the subject has imparted upon him a greater understanding than the majority of the worlds scientists. Like all kooks, he feels that the few newspaper articles he has read, has allowed him to have a unique insight that no amount of scientifically trained people (students and professors) have managed to spot. He is amazing, and I am sure he will be on his way to Stockholm in the very near future. Or not. Add into this weird approach to science, the fact he is attacking things no on their science but on their presentation (or more importantly his interpretation of it), and you can see he must spend a lot of time at UncommonDescent. Even his arguments seem similar to the crackpot ones they use. As soon as he uses the “less than half of scientists support global warming” we will know the truth… Continue reading
It is a Christmas tradition in the UK for the soaps to outdo each other with stories of despair, desperation, disaster and sorrow (ran out of a fourth “d”). We are used to it over here and I get round it by the simple expedient of not watching. Easily done. However, today I was caught off guard by reading the letters page in the Guardian newspaper.
In the letters page of today’s paper (and online by the magic of the internet), Tony McNulty (the minster of state for security, counterterrorism, crime and policing) goes out of his way to remind everyone why we should be so scared we continue to pay him. Ladies and Gentlefolk of Britain, be scared. In a letter about why we need control orders, Mr McNulty writes:
The UK faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism and the government’s top priority is to protect the public.
Oh my! Toutatis Save Us! Having grown up through three decades of IRA “Christmas Campaigns” I really do not believe this. I have clear memories of shopping in Manchester and London as the shops empty of customers following a “bomb threat.” I remember watching on the news when the IRA bombed the Brighton hotel Margaret Thatcher was in. I remember watching the news when 10 Downing Street was mortar’d by the IRA. I remember car bombs, shootings, and I remember why we don’t have bins in train stations.
What has changed? What is so “unprecedented” about the threat from Islamic terrorism? The only thing I can think of is this time the terrorist doesn’t make escape plans – so at least you don’t get experienced bombers…
There are certain individuals who we have strong suspicion are involved in terrorist activity but who we cannot prosecute or, if they are foreign nationals, deport.
Wow, this is scary. Very scary. Basically put, if the government thinks you are guilty of a crime, but doesn’t have enough evidence for it to survive a trial, they will place you under a control order. Reading this, it seems the Minister is almost wishful for a state where the government could prosecute / deport people it thought were guilty.
Now, at first pass, this seems reasonable. On a daily basis the media show us news items of evil guilty people who have escaped justice by the crafty expedient of being found innocent (or worse, there not being any evidence of their guilt). This has, to an extent, inoculated us against the sheer outrage we should feel over this. It seems to me that the relationship between the people and the government who are supposed to work on their behalf has changed for the much worse. Now, we the people, need to live in fear of the government who seek to be able to take executive action against free citizens without being encumbered by the rule of law. Yeah, it frightens me. Well done Guardian.
None of this is meant to pour scorn on the work and effort of the security forces who toil ceaselessly to protect the people. I can only imagine the frustration and resentment they suffer as various trials where they know the person is guilty but for whatever reason they are released. However, the “government” is not supposed to feel this resentment. We, as a society, are supposed to manage and tolerate the frustrations of our public servants.
Harsh though it may seem, police (and security) officers are human and make mistakes. They suffer from poor judgement, irrational ideas and get things wrong just like the rest of us. Allowing a person’s freedom to be removed without sufficient evidence to convince a court simply means we are pandering to the feelings of these public servants – no longer are they serving the public interest, but we are serving their needs. This is wrong. If a police officer feels person x is “guilty” then they need to get enough evidence to prove it. If they are unable to get the evidence, then they have to assume that they were mistaken and the person was innocent after all.
What other way can there be?
In a spirit of mid-winter-solstice charity, I decided to take seriously the claim on
worldnet daily that there is an amazing pill that can unblock your arteries. It must be an advert, although you’d have to be a really regular devotee of the site to detect that from the index page. The relevant page is labelled “Breaking Health News“on the homepage so I’m treating it as an item of news.
(It’s not as if anyone would ever dream of accusing the likes of worldnet daily advertisers of preying on the fears of the gullible and sick to make a quick buck.)
The 23-Cent LIFE-SAVER Heart Surgeons NEVER TELL YOU ABOUT!
The astonishing health miracle 1.5 million grateful patients swear by…
So safe, it’s FDA-APPROVED for use in baby food: Proven THREE TIMES SAFER than aspirin—used worldwide for 56 years without any significant side-effects ever reported!
So effective, you can actually SEE it working: medical studies prove it works and U.S. doctors prescribe it every day!
So cheap, it’s JUST PENNIES A DAY: Just 23 cents per capsule—one-tenth the cost of a gallon of gas!
The testimonials suggest we are the presence of a miracle cure. Arteries cleared. Heart surgery avoided. Blood pressure normalised. Breathing problems sorted out. Ankles unswollen. Eyesight improved. Liver spots disappeared. Paralysis cured, even.
Naturally, I think ‘As they said on the Simpsons, “Where can we get these placebos?”‘
There is a substance that safely unblocks arteries and it’s been known for 56 years? Why is there still any arterial disease then?
Because heart surgeons won’t tell you about it? Those skeptical science-y types spoil everything… Surely that’s not because it doesn’t work? That would be unthinkable. I mean it’s advertised on a site as reputable as worldnet daily. (Snurk)
Or, is worldnet daily suggesting that surgeons’ greed is stopping patients from getting a safe and cheap treatment? Blimey, they’ll be arguing for socialised medicine next! But “doctors prescribe it every day.” (That must be regular doctors, not those greedy heart surgeons, then.)
It is a chemical called EDTA. Wikipedia puts a mild dampener on the enthusiasm. Among many other uses, it’s an industrial solvent, a water softener and a fertiliser. It’s used to clean bottles and it’s put in soft drinks to mitigate the formation of benzene. (Argh, benzene in soft drinks?) European and US rivers are awash with it apparently. It appears to be not exactly 100% safe either.
There’s even an odd, if intriguing, celeb scandal connection mentioned in the Wiki page:
EDTA played a role in the O.J. Simpson trial when one of the blood samples collected from Simpson’s estate was found to contain traces of the compound. This was used by the defense to indicate that the sample had been planted from one of the vials collected during the investigation. Prosecution claimed EDTA might have appeared in the sample as a result of eating McDonald’s foods ….
Wikipedia describes the uses proposed by the wingnut site advert as “theoretical.” A Cochrane Collection review of the studies, as reported in Medscape, found no evidence of any effects in all but one study of it. The other one (involving 10 people) was stopped when the results showed an effect. (Uh? Don’t ask me. I just blog this stuff.)
At present, there is insufficient evidence to decide on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of chelation therapy in improving clinical outcomes of people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Compared to swallowing whole the whole worldnet daily message, swallowing mostly harmless pills is pretty small beer. Not to mention swallowing the line that you can get a load of free gifts to keep even if you send the stuff back as not working.
So, how much do they charge for this widely available industrial solvent? (Which seems to be so freely used that it’s a wonder there’s anyone left with plaque in their arteries)
BEST VALUE: A full year of Enhanced Oral Chelation™™ for just $239.40. I SAVE $120.00 and get all 7 FREE gifts:
4 FREE bottles of Mineral Power!â„¢ (a $79.80 value)
NO MORE SNEAK ATTACKS! (a $19.95 value)
DE-GUNK YOUR ARTERIES FOR LIFE! (a $19.95 value)
FREE SHIPPING AND HANDLING
$246.65 worth of discounts and FREE gifts in all!
Bloody hell! It costs $246.65 for 4 bottles of a mineral supplement, a couple of leaflets and some money-off coupons!
And what happened to the “$126.65 value, FREE!” they were shouting about earlier in the page? Were the leaflets affected by the rise in oil prices in the time between writing the page and setting up an order form? The numbers are so specific, they couldn’t have just pulled them out of the air could they?
*************
Pointless aside: Doesn’t chelation mean turning something into a turtle? Or a shell?
Quick reminder: The BBC are planning to have Richard Dawkins as their guest on “Have your say” which will be at 1406 GMT on Sunday, 9 Dec 07. You can leave comments or find out more on the BBC site about this.
The BBC reports a study that found unusual patterns in the brain scans of anorexics and former anorexics.
All the explanations suggest that the different scans show some underlying difference in these brains from non-anorexics. This difference is presented as a sign of an underlying mental illness with a causal relationship to anorexia.
The findings in the American Journal of Psychiatry point to a brain region linked to anxiety and perfectionism……. Dr Ian Frampton of Exeter University, who has himself been conducting MRI studies in patients with anorexia, said: “This shows how the brain might be important in eating disorders.
“There may be networks in the brain that make someone vulnerable to developing an eating disorder.”
Establishing a neurobiological cause might help remove some of the blame and stigma that surrounds conditions like anorexia, he said.
A spokeswoman from the eating disorders association “beat” said: “This demonstrates how complex eating disorders are and underlines that they should be treated as a serious mental illness and not a silly diet gone wrong.” (from the BBC report)
All this seems like a big leap from the evidence to me. The effects of starvation on the brain’s functions would be my first suggested explanation. You could test this easily, by scanning the brains of some of the many people in the world who have experienced unwilling starvation. Maybe the experimenters did this and it didn’t get reported in the pop science version.
Is it cynicism or scepticism to doubt these kinds of assertions? (See great post by Alun Salt – who seems to have become the blog-imptetus-du-weekend – discussing the role of honest doubt, as shown in the AZT discovery.)
I was uncynically delighted to see that, while this blog was away, badscience.net has been saying things that I find myself saying – more ineptly and with very much less scientific knowledge – such as Evolutionary Psychology is teleological and the prospect of infinite free energy defies the laws of physics.
Where Alun talks about cynicism he seems to mean starting from to a refusal to believe encouraging evidence, whereas scepticism suggests that one will accept the evidence if it is persuasive. All the same, there are plenty of claims that demand a cynical response. (“Conspiracy theory” views about UFOS; the assertion that climate change is a myth that somehow benefits the government; new Aids “treatments” using an untested couple of herbs; denials of the use of torture. need I go on?) Mere scepticism doesn’t do full justice to these claims.
Sometimes, cynicism is a crucial part of the sceptical response to the world. A cynic asks “Who benefits from this?” or says “I’ve heard this nonsense before and it was proved false then.”
A little cynicism about the sources of the WMD evidence, that was used to justify the start of the T.W.A.T. (TM Nullifidian) might have saved many lives and spared the world from years of going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.
It seems this managed to slip under our radar recently, but the ever-entertaining and educational Ben Goldacre managed to get himself a piece in the Daily Mail, where he points out the madness of homeopathic treatments and the gibberish provided by its adherents.
As always, pretty much everything Ben writes is spot on, but what is breathtaking is the weirdness espoused by the novelist Jeanette Winterson (she is arguing the case “for” homeopathy). It is a good example of how people willingly allow their own gullibility to over power any sense of reason they may have once possessed:
Picture this. I am staying in a remote cottage in Cornwall without a car. I have a temperature of 102, spots on my throat, delirium, and a book to finish writing.
My desperate publisher suggests I call Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath who has practices in London and Penzance. She sends round a remedy called Lachesis, made from snake venom.
Four hours later I have no symptoms whatsoever. Dramatic stuff, and enough to convince me that while it might use snake venom, homeopathy is no snake oil designed for gullible hypochrondriacs.
Wow. What an amazing bit of evidence. Homeopathy must work… Quick, rush out and buy as much snake venom as you can, distil it until there is no venom left and only water and we can cure the cold. Amazing. What are you waiting for!
Actually hang on a second, there is some more evidence, this time from me. Dateline a few weeks ago:
Picture this. I am lying in my bed, sick, coughing and lethargic. I have had the shivers for a couple of days now. The cold sweats are really getting me down and every bone in my body aches. I am at the point where I think I am going to die in the next few minutes. Eventually, through sheer exhaustion I fall asleep.
Four hours later, I wake up and I have no symptoms whatsoever. Dramatic stuff and enough to convince me that things like the cold and flu are short term viral infections which can normally be overcome by a reasonably healthy immune system. Also, when they are overcome, you actually get better.
Just goes to show, taking a homeopathic treatment often has the same effect as not doing anything at all. Colds and Flu are good examples. Even the medical treatments dont really “cure” them – things like paracetamol and phenylephedrine mostly just relive the symptoms and make it easier for your body to fight for itself. Often medicine, while making the symptoms much more manageable, will make the infection last a bit longer.
You see, homeopathy is actually snake oil designed for gullible hypochondriacs. Unfortunately, Jeanette Winterson is one of these gullible hypochondriacs.
It is also interesting that, in the best habits of homeopaths and their followers, Jeanette resorts to misusing sciencey-sounding words. “Nano” gets used a lot, even though it doesn’t mean what she thinks it means – mostly because “nano-particles” sounds cool and exciting and makes it seem like there is some actual research behind the crap.
Demonstrating a wonderful lack of scientific background, she writes:
Objections to homeopathy begin with what are viewed as the impossible dilutions of the remedies, so that only nano amounts of the original active substance remain.
Yet our recent discoveries in the world of the very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nano-quantities. We are discovering that the properties of materials change as their size reaches the nano-scale.
In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change.
We do not know whether this has a bearing on homeopathic dilutions, but it may offer a clue.
Head spinning stuff. If only “nano amounts” of the “active” substance did remain, there may be some credibility in what homeopaths claims. The fact is, you can detect “nano amounts.” Nano amounts seems to imply a 1 part in 1×10^-9 dilution, homeopathic treatments are of the order of 1 part in 1×10^60 dilution. There is a huge difference (even ignoring the problem of the sign). She is trying to allude to quantum mechanics, but is doing so in a new-agey sort of manner which is, putting it mildly, nonsense. I have one message for Jeanette (on the off chance she ever reads this blog…): Stick to writing novels, if you really must voice your support for snake oil homeopathy, then please do so using your excellent command of language and literature; please do not try to talk science without learning a lot more.
Sadly, she is not alone in this range of mad ideas. In the comments, “Kate” writes:
I am a firm believer in homeopathy and have been for quite some time. Working in a medical environment, I have been an easy target for ridicule but I wish the NHS was able to include proven and well documented complementary therapies more than is available at present.
I hope she is lying about working in a medical environment (unless she is a receptionist or someone with no access to patient care). Ironically, the NHS is able to provide proven and well documentary therapies. The problem is homeopathy is proven to be crap.
Mooching around the internet today allowed me to stumble upon a site I’ve visited in the past but largely had forgotten about – despite the fact it reaches a new level of bizarreness. The site is CSE Blogs, for those of you who (like me) wondered what CSE stood for, it isn’t “Combined Services Entertainment” or even the “Centre for Sustainable Energy.” No, it stands for the complete headcase Creation Science Evangelism promoted by “dr” Tax-Dodger Hovind. Surely some one can sue the creation “science” nuts over the use of CSE?
Anyway, as I said, this is a painfully weird site. The posts seem to be made by a lackey of Hovind called “pabramson” (which seems to be missing a “h” in my mind but …) and are largely examples of weird imagined conversations between Hovind and various mythical figures. When I say weird, I don’t mean in the nice, funny sort of way. While the larger part of me assumes that Hovind and his lackeys all know it is a load of crap, there is a little bit which is screaming that the gullible rubes visiting the site and leaving gushing comments (example follows) actually believe the nonsense. Now that is scary.
Thank you Brother Kent, and Brother Paul, Brother Eric, and everyone else at CSE. I needed this today! I have my own ministry and I speak about Creation, evolution, and share the salvation plan with everyone who will listen, and I have never been backed down or proven wrong. (from Micheal Deas)
Great isn’t it. I suspect the reason he has never “been backed down or proven wrong” is mostly down to the fact he preaches to other idiots.
The main thing I find weird about this site, is the sheer volume of Knee-Mail posts. First off, the play on words is one which would embarrass a mildly educated ten year old after a while (which could explain why these lunatics nice people are still getting kicks from it) but each and every one seems to think it is a brand new and funny way to open a “sermon.” That, in effect, is all the posts are – a sad attempt by a criminal to try and preach to the public over the internet in the style of some one in an electronic conversation with a mythical figure.
Take the latest one, the one I came across first, which presents itself as a conversation between “Kent and the Captain.” This is how it begins (note the attempt to recreate an e-mail header at the start, how funny…)
From: Kent Hovind
Sent: August 17, 2007
To: Captain of Ship to Italy with Passenger, the Apostle Paul
Subject: Re: Discussions on the Wisdom of Sailing Against the Advice of the Prisoner Paul and the “Preserved Word†from which He Preaches
(Read Acts 27:6-44)KH: Hey Captain! I hate to bother you at this busy time, but can you talk for a minute (between verses 11 and 12)?
Captain: Sure, knee-mail suspends time; so it won’t effect me at all.
KH: I understand that you own the ship that is headed to Italy.
Like I said, it is weird but I will try to identify all the things which I think are odd – please feel free to correct me if you think I am missing the point…
First off, it was posted on 19 Nov 07. Why does the faux-header say 17 August? Is that when Kent sent the message out of prison? Does “knee-mail” suspend time but take three months to get anywhere? More importantly, why is the Captain of the ship carrying the supposed Apostle Paul getting a message in 2007? Are creationists unable to maintain a coherent line of fantasy? (Oh, yeah, scratch that one…)
I am bit thrown by the reference to “between verses 11 and 12,” when Kent then goes on to make references to verses after Acts 27:12. Having said that, Acts is a bit of a mixmash anyway – trying to read the verses in chronological (or any logical) order is like hammering a nail into granite with your forehead. For example look at the flow between Acts 27:34 – 38: (this is after they had apparently been starving for 14 days)
34: Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35: And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
36: Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.
37: And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
38: And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea. (source Biblos.com, KJ version)
That is one of the more readable sections, yet it still manages to insert a seemingly out of place head count and have some drivel about baldness. (Also, as they are starving, not having eaten for 14 days Acts 27:33, why did they throw their wheat into the sea – in fact, as they obviously had bread, meat and wheat, why had they starved themselves for 14 days!)
From this bit of biblical madness it becomes a touch easier to see where Hovind gets his writing style from. The thing I can’t understand is why is he being allowed to carry on doing this? Surely there are some regulations on what inmates can and can’t do with regards to contact with the outside world?
Great irony can be found in the comments, especially where Paul Abramson is talking about people writing to Kent in jail (to lift his spirits etc) and he writes:
Do not put “Dr.†on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately.
Oh, how that made me giggle.
Less funny, although giving a better insight into the minds of the creationist, is the reaction to Dermot’s comment. Basically Dermot writes creationism is not scientific, so Paul Abramson cuts him off (yet doesn’t delete the post, just slices it) to say they are not going to talk about creationism, then talks about creationism. Weird but true.
I like this bit in particular:
For a *believer* then creation is non-negotiable. Either the Bible is true (including Exodus 20:11) or it is not true. Either God is strong or weak. One cannot have both. That is what makes this non-negotiable – for believers.
The God of the Bible is strong. The god of evolution is weak and bumbling or is non-existent. It is incoherent to try to mix evolution with Christianity, I would contend.
Great, isn’t it. Just like six year olds in a play ground arguing whose father is the toughest. I am starting to get an idea of the mental age of these creationists…
Edit to add: Seriously, if this was anyone else, or if it wasn’t supposed to be a hommage to the great sky pixie, people would have put Kent in a padded cell and be force feeding him all manner of chemicals. The man is either a callous con artist or criminally insane. You chose which.Â
It seems the World Trade Organisation is drawing back a bit from using its financial muscle against the EU over GM food**, according to an International Herald Tribune story.
.. the World Trade Organization said Thursday that the European Union would be given more time to end blockages on imports of engineered foods like corn.
“The period during which the EU was meant to have worked this out expired, and the parties decided to extend the deadline to Jan. 11,” said Keith Rockwell, a spokesman for the WTO.
The EU had been due to end the blockages by Nov. 21……
Argentina, Canada and the United States have sued the European Union at the WTO, which ruled last year that a de facto EU ban on imports of genetically modified foods between 1984 and 2004 was illegal.
This is quite a complicated, not to mention dull, story that I can’t really summarise without losing focus on the facts, but, basically, some EU countries and politicians object to having to open their markets to GM products on ecological grounds.
This has involved some heavy international pressure for “free trade” being brought to bear on the EU. From the BBC, in 2006, after the EU had even folded and allowed US sweetcorn in.
Two years ago the moratorium was lifted and a modified strain of sweet corn, grown mainly in the US, was allowed onto the market.
But Washington continued with the WTO case because it wanted to be sure approvals for GMO sales were being decided on scientific rather than political grounds.
Well, that sounds like a laudable aim, doesn’t it? Deciding issues on scientific rather than political grounds? Who could argue with that? Hmm. So the decision to push GM foods onto countries that really really don’t want them could not possibly be politically motivated then….. The wide antagonism to GM foods in Europe is “political” while the desire of big agribiz to sell seeds and crops is merely scientific.
In a reply to my comment on his blog, the Exterminator said:
heather, you said “In the UK, where atheism is more or less the default state “…
I don’t think you have any idea how envious that makes some of us feel.
Well, really, Exterminator, everyone in the UK, (nah in Europe, well, in the rest of the world really) is constantly jealous of America. You might have to face a fair bit more Christian lunacy but the lives of individual Americans are generally much better than ours. (Ignore the political leadership for a minute. I am talking about everyday living here)
The US has a widespread incomprehension of potential ecological crisis, a subject which occupies the minds of us Europeans a lot. (The conceptual average American, not anyone in particular.) While we in Europe are sorting through our garbage like starving raccoons* – washing out pickle jars and carefully separating soft cardboard from thick paper – you are living as if the world ‘s resources are infinite, maybe because you assume you have enough power to take what you need from the rest of the world when anything does run out.
Your cars are enormous by European standards. Even some of your ghettoes have detached houses with gardens. Your petrol is laughably cheap, even when you are facing a huge fuel price increase. FFS, you don’t even have to flush your own toilets. You have public restrooms where a sensor marks when you’ve lifted your butts off the pan and flushes the lavatory with more suction than the average vacuum cleaner. We’d all like to live like that.
The only problem is that your food is often shit. And I’m an English person speaking. The English have traditionally been associated with the worst food in Europe. Cheap food in the UK is usually rubbish. UK food makes even such European oddities like the Dutch willingness to put chocolate hundreds-and-thousands (sprinkles) on bread seem moderately tasteful. But, even we don’t have products like the clearly ironically named “cheese” in an aerosol can.
So, “protectionism” aside, Europeans generally don’t trust either your food or your commitment to the environment. Hence, we tend to pressurise our politicians to keep out GM food. My question here is whether Americans don’t also pressurise your politicians to make sure you can carry on driving huge vehicles, using infinite amounts of domestic power and finding magical “food” and household products available in supermarkets that feel as big as small European states?
Scientifically, it seems a mite doomed, unless the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate and ecosystem scientists are somehow mistaken. But, politically, maintaining the benefits of your way of life is a real imperative. So, how likely are we to see Washington pushing to make sure that any other major environmental issues are
being decided on scientific rather than political grounds?
*To quote the Simpsons – and, yes, even your best bloody television is infinitely classier than ours.
** How does anyone square the very existence of GM products with a creationist refusal to accept the evolutionary science behind genetics, by the way?
Well, I am back from my holidays now, suitably depressed at having to return to work in a cold, wet and miserable climate. It seems that while this blog was on hiatus, the lunatics and idiots were out in full force. A few weeks ago, Rob Crilly wrote a post on the Times Online Comment section titled “Church Row Evolves Over Fossil Boy.” In a nutshell, this post can be summarised as follows:
Turkana Boy, considered the most complete early human fossil, is being removed from his bomb-proof vault to take centre stage at an exhibition that curators say will provide the most complete record of the evolution of Man.
However, the collection, to be show-cased for the first time at the Nairobi National Museum after a £5 million renovation financed by the European Union, has drawn sharp criticism from evangelical Christians who deny the theory of evolution.
It is an interesting post, but as always the real insight into the nonsense which bounces around inside what ever some theists (note: not all…) use instead of brains comes in the comments. It would have made me happier if I could claim that the real off the wall comments were from Americans, but sadly this is not always the case. Take this wonderful bit of ignorance:
Any scientist who believes that evolution is the only explanation for the origins of life is more worried about his career prospects than actually conveying the truth about what is known about origins and the diversity of life.
Darwinian Evolution has minimal evidence, is statistically improbable, and because it inolves historical events is unproveable. Or as one NON Christian scientist described it a preposterous hypothesis.
Why do scientists who know the failings of the hypothesis continue to try and prevent any argument against it or stifle anyone who questions its validity?
Simply because it has become a tenet of faith for scientists which is being increasingly forced on the world and children in particular.
Everything we know about genetics tells us that Darwinian evolution is impossible so why persist in pretending it is possible let alone the only plausible explanation.
Martin, Isle of Skye
Obviously Martin has been living with his head buried to ensure no education has been allowed to seep past his ears since 1840. It constantly amazes me how people can try to sound off as if they know what they are talking about, then make phrases like “Darwinian Evolution has minimal evidence.” Even “Darwinian Evolution” is enough to show the person is an idiot. Shamefully, Martin has made lots of comments including “I did A Level Biology” at the same time as showing he failed to understand a single thing he was taught. Priceless.
Fortunately, the USA stages a comeback:
What the article is saying isn’t that these Kenyans are protesting the Theory of Darwinism/Accidental Evolution, but rather that this theory is presented as FACT or LAW. This puts a very different spin on the presentation, and you can not prove evolution. Primarily due to the lack of intermediate species to be found in today’s world or in the fossil record.
Having read quite a bit on history, I believe the Bible’s seven days mean seven ages. The specifics are not listed, nor need they be. The beginning of each age involves an explosion of life, and these can be traced in the fossil records. Every kind of fruit, tree, and animal creates more of the same, not completely different animals.
Steven, Danville, CA
Here we get the tired, repetitive issue of an idiot who doesn’t understand what a “theory” is (in the scientific sense at least). Thanks to uncountable numbers of self serving creationists trying to muddy the waters, people seem to think a scientific theory is something useless – obviously the Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity (and so on) are all equally false and should not be presented as “FACT or LAW.” More importantly, I cant for one second believe Steven has really read “quite a bit on history.” It strikes me as intellectually dishonest to have to re-invent choice parts of the “holy book” to keep it valid, but then that is just me.
Keeping to the creationist playbook we get:
Careful study of the bible shows that adam and eve were not mere allegorical characters. Jewish people kept accurate records of lineage in the temple and could trace their family trees back to Adam and Eve. It was one way the messiah could be authenticated and with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE no one else could claim to be Christ. When you extrapolate the time line of the bible it shows we came from adam and eve 6000 years ago. These so-called christians who believe otherwise are just that; so-called, not real, false christians.
As for spontaneous generation and evolution here’s how it sounds to me. I see a house. I notice that no matter how complex this house seems it is still countless times less complex than the simplest living organisms. You would have me believe that someone designed and built this house. I calculate the odds and come to the conclusion that if man spontaneously generated it is millions of times more likely that the house also did. Joey George, Mason City, IA
The wonderful argument from complexity. Great huh? Best part about it, is that it needs no education or understanding… “Careful study of the bible” is enough to falsify anything this nutter says.
Next we get the frothing theist, waiting for the rapture:
I’m reading all the comments and insults in this forum and I simply say the day is coming, who ever cares to believe it or not, that Jesus is returning to get the true believers who showed faith and endured hardships and yet still know in their heart, mind and soul that there shall be no more suffering for his namesake. As God created us, he gave us Free Will. He started with Adam & Eve and they disobeyed him just like man is doing today. God’s laws are basic So continue to waste your time and energy about the evolution of man because it does not matter. I’m just a grain of sand on a beach Christian woman who have that faith. I’m secure in Christ. Don’t be left behind. Syl, Ossining, USA/New York
Amazing. If heaven is going to be filled with people like this, I am happy I will stay here on Earth. Continuing the sense of nonsense we get:
Evolution is a false theory because its just a fairy tale for grown ups they tell you that a frog can turn into a prince but is not true that is impossible. The same applied to apes turning into humans.
Most of the articles I read these days about science only support the evolution theory and is very bias. The news today don’t show the other side and let creationist scientists defend creation, don’t be suprised there are hundreds of scientists in this world who support creation please let them speak also not just the evolution scientists don’t be bias thank you.
In conclusion based on the evidence that the creation scientists have presented to me I don’t believe in evolution theory I believe more in a intelligent designer. Also evolution and creation are incompatible with each other because both cannot be true so don’t try to put them together the bible don’t mention anything about evolution so don’t try to make evolution part of the christian faith.
knowledge is power. OldLiesForTheNewWorld, Providence, RI
Trying to follow this nonsense is painful. What is it with creationist/theists and appalling grammar/spelling? It is funny that this “person” concludes their opinion on Evolution is based on the evidence presented by creation scientists. It seems the fact the bible doesn’t mention evolution is the most damming evidence. How, I wonder, does OldLiesForTheNewWorld access the internet when I am fairly sure it isn’t in the bible…
The department of blind ignorance brings us this (actually, several comments allude to the same line of nonsense as this one) nugget:
The “faith” of evolutionists is greater than the faith of many Christians. Anyone who can believe that nothing plus nothing equals everything is truly an amazing person. An all-knowing, all-powerful intelligence is evident everywhere. Open your eyes and you will see. Open your hearts and you will know. Jim Thomas, Panama City, Florida
It confounds me that people can argue such a self defeating proposition. It seems that some people, however, can go a stage further:
So now evolutionists are saying gravity is just a theory! Where’s the logic? Without it everything not tied down would just float off into the atmosphere. Who determines what intelligence is but a group of scientists arguing with those who they think are less smarter than themselves. By saying that half the human race is below average intelligence is their way of reasoning that man evolved from apes! If half of the population were given the chance to increase their learning skills they would know a lot more. marilyn carrier, troy, mi
Argh! The stupidity burns! It is not evolutionists who say gravity is “just a theory.” “Science” says gravity is a theory. Creationists and IDers say theories are “Just a theory.” Argh. More madness from Florida:
There are some really ignorant comments being made. Evilutionists attacking for the sake of attacking. If evolution was held up to the same standard as creationism, it would fall flat on ts face. To use science’s own rules “if you can’t physically seit happen, then what you have is theory and conjecture.” Volution cannot be proven unless one stands around “for millions of years and documents it”. So its a theory. Theory. Get over it. vic, Palm Harbor, FL
What! I like the (un)original use of “Evilutionists” though. It made me giggle for all of a second. How clever Vic is. Evolution is held up to the same standard as creationism. That is why ID/Creationism is ridiculed…
More American brand madness comes with this bit of blinding nonsense:
Evolution is a theory. Period. The “science” behind it is really pseudoscience. If evolution were fact, there would be an abundance of fossils in transitional form found. There are none. Also, no living creatures today are in transitional form. Dogs are dogs, birds are birds, men are men, etc. There may be variations but, they are within their species. Also, the fact that bacteria become more resistant to antibiotics does not prove evolution, either. They are still bacteria. Vic, Moreno Valley, Ca
Again, the idiocy makes my head hurt. The “Dogs are dogs…” bit is amazing. Obviously there is only one type of dog, not different ones which are adapted to different climates, let alone the “transitional” types of animal where you get marsuipial lions for example. It really makes you want to cry.
I will finish my laugh at the madness with two comments. Both of which are funny enough to not need any further ridicule: (emphasis mine, minor ridicule…)
The theory of the conservation of matter states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And the theory of the conservation of engery states basically the same thing about energy. We have the big bang theory etc… which was caused by an energy. Think about it folks. Science proves religion. If the big bang created everything wouldn’t that go against the conservation laws? that only pushes one closer to the fact that God exists and I’m not ignorant; I’m a biology major and I took an evolution class. Look at the bible and the ENTIRE theory of evolution…they complement each other and remember the earth was created in 7 GOD DAYS (1000 years to us is like a second to him) thus, those million of years that scientists say major geological/biological events occurred have occurred in God days. I think that both sides need to research the other before they open their mouths and I just want to say that you tell Christians to have open minds same to you and I pray for you. Becca, Tobyhanna
What makes everyone think that the crowning glory of evolution is the ability to manipulate one’s environment or absorb vast amounts of knowledge. We have done these things, and to what end? We still cannibalize our own species, sickness, disease,war,famine, crime, perversion is higher than ever before. Young men and women are hopeless, dying and killing in our inner cities, or turning to more exotic drugs to numb their emptiness. Marraiges and relationships are failing. People are indeed growing older, in a society that is not able to care for them. And everything that is born, dies. Everything that is fresh, becomes stale. Everything that is clean, becomes dirty. The snow falls as white, and turns to gray. Evolution is a myth in a world where everything proceeds to maximum entropy….by our own scientific observation. The world has been contaminated by men who thought they knew more than God. And only God, will return one day to fix his creation and the mess that we made of it. Mark Cognata, Medford, USA,Massachusetts
Wonderful isn’t it.
As an aside, while I was on holiday, I went to Seaworld where I overheard a conversation in the penguin enclosure. A little boy was asking his parents why God had made Puffins and Penguins rather than just one or the other. Sadly, I never heard the reply….