Tara Smith posted Entry 2472 on July 24, 2006 08:07 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2467

Evolutionary biologists sometimes think we microbiology people have it easy. “No one doubts the germ theory!,” they claim.

Au contraire, mes amis:

Do some research Tara. Then you will be ready to start from scratch again, forget the germ theory nonsense and become a real scientist.

And I bet this insult will sound familiar to many used to dealing with the anti-science brigades:

(Continued at Aetiology)

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #114527

Posted by normdoering on July 24, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Tara wrote:

I quit my job and rally against the germ theory of disease

At first I thought that was just a joke, but then I started believing in a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html

Comment #114688

Posted by Dr. Morgan Greenwood on July 25, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

I would like to direct each person’s attention to the views posted by Casey Powell….his viewpoints are to be greatly respected and admired. Please observe this link regarding the issue: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/act_now_to_help.html#postcomment. This succintly shows where the rest of the world stands. I am an eye doctor and can assure you that irreducible complexity is a must in understanding the human eye. Generally speaking, everybody around the world will ascribe to the same claim. I do wish you the best in achieving the Scientific goals of the community. However, do not be misled by the Dover case. Remember, this is just the case for one state, and a very liberated state at that. I have reviewed the implications of the case and agree with the opponents of Evolution. Evolution is simply collapsing as a theorum and should and will generally be denied across the Scientific community.

Dr. Morgan Greenwood

Comment #114712

Posted by normdoering on July 25, 2006 11:13 AM (e)

Dr. Morgan Greenwood wrote:

I am an eye doctor and can assure you that irreducible complexity is a must in understanding the human eye.

I can assure you that Dr. Greenwood has never really tried to reduce the complexity of the eye.

Comment #114746

Posted by normdoering on July 25, 2006 11:43 AM (e)

Dr. Morgan Greenwood,

What do you think of this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/creationists_muscling_in_on_my_territory_1.php

Comment #114822

Posted by Sounder on July 25, 2006 3:31 PM (e)

I like how they come in and “testify”. As if that’s how science worked.

The eye is a developed organ, just like every other system in the human body. I would think an eye doctor who’s aware of the flaws of our jury-rigged peepers would know this better than most.

Comment #114823

Posted by Sounder on July 25, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Also, why post this in this thread? Did the obvious parallels between germ theory deniers and evolutionary theory deniers come as a shock to you?

Comment #114826

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 25, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

Gosh, “Dr.” Morgan Greenwood, how utterly non-coincidental that you mispell “theorum” in exactly the same way as “Dr.” Casey Powell, whose views you claim should be “greatly respected and admired.”

Who do you think you’re kidding, chumpo?

Get out from in front of the funhouse mirror and take a look around the real world through your not so very intelligently-designed Mark Whoops eyeballs. Maybe the scales will fall off.

Comment #114867

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 25, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

This link seems relevant:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Comment #114869

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 25, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

Evolution is simply collapsing as a theorum and should and will generally be denied across the Scientific community.

Scientifically ignorant Evangelicals have been saying that for many decades, but funny thing, in the actual ‘Scientific community’ it sure ain’t showing any signs of happening.

But hey, good luck with that. Now run along and tend to your next patient.

Comment #114882

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 25, 2006 8:47 PM (e)

Waterloo !!! Waterloo!!!!! Waterloo!!!!

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #114921

Posted by Chris Lawson on July 26, 2006 3:08 AM (e)

1. Dr Morgan Greenwood can’t spell theorem.
2. Understanding the eye from a clinical perspective is irrelevant to the validity of evolution or ID.
3. Perhaps Dr Greenwood would like to furnish a reference to the clinical application of irreducible complexity in ophthalmology.
4. Google has no match for morgan greenwood ophthalmologist, morgan greenwood ophthalmology, or morgan greenwood eye.

Comment #114944

Posted by wamba on July 26, 2006 8:26 AM (e)

Waterloo !!! Waterloo!!!!! Waterloo!!!!

Lenny must be an ABBA fan.

Comment #114968

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 26, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

[UD mode]You sneer, Tara, but until you can conclusively show that vapors and spiritual influences aren’t playing a crucial role in disease mechanisms, your silly “germ theory” is so much secular mythology.

We do acknowledge the micro-germ theory, of course. Bacteria and viruses do occur, and they opportunistically add to the misery that spirits cause to bodies. What you can’t show is that bacteria and viruses are all that cause illnesses, that the macro-germ theory of disease is truly warranted. You think that micro-organisms can really control themselves and our bodies without spirits designing and coordinating the progress of the disease?

Besides which, the micro-organisms themselves are too complex to have merely evolved, so how could they even exist without spirits or demons controlling them? But why would we suppose that the same spirits or demons wouldn’t be directing the diseases themselves, only working through micro-organisms as agents for their purposes?

You’re blinded by your naturalistic materialism to the real forces acting beyond the limited role (if any) that micro-organisms play in diseases. The drug companies and atheists have a stranglehold on medical practice and remedies for diseases, and they insist that mindless agents that they can kill are responsible for sickness and death. If we only received a small portion of funding that atheistic science and drug companies receive, we would be able to demonstrate conclusively that spirits, and perhaps demons as well, are the real forces behind illnesses, with the micro-germ theory of disease only explaining a tiny portion of the origination and development of diseases.[/UD mode]

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #114969

Posted by Darth Robo on July 26, 2006 10:34 AM (e)

Well I’m not. And now I have that damn song stuck in my head! Thanks.

:(

Comment #114972

Posted by fnxtr on July 26, 2006 10:58 AM (e)

Lenny:

The cure for getting ANY song out of your head is to hum the first part of Edgar Winter’s “Frankenstein”. Works every time.

Comment #114977

Posted by steve s on July 26, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Comment #114968

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 26, 2006 10:32 AM (e) | kill

[UD mode]If we only received a small portion of funding that atheistic science and drug companies receive, we would be able to demonstrate conclusively that spirits, and perhaps demons as well, are the real forces behind illnesses, with the micro-germ theory of disease only explaining a tiny portion of the origination and development of diseases.[/UD mode]

Whoa whoa whoa…It is not Demon Sickness Theory’s job to match their pathetic level of detail. If Demon Sickness Theory is correct and a malevolent intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain diseases, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with pathological systems that is what Demon Sickness Theory is discovering.

Comment #115010

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 26, 2006 5:44 PM (e)

Lenny must be an ABBA fan.

No, but Dembski and the other IDers must be. ;)

Me, I prefer Metallica and Megadeth. Good old-fashioned Devil Music.

Comment #115160

Posted by Karen on July 27, 2006 9:38 AM (e)

Besides which, the micro-organisms themselves are too complex to have merely evolved, so how could they even exist without spirits or demons controlling them?

(whimpering) oh….man….tell me you’re posting tongue-in-cheek, PLEASE!!!!

Oh, and I went to your tinyurl link Glen. Light fuschia text on tomato red background? Light red text on a dark red background??? Are you TRYING to make people leave your site in a hurry?? Even that cursory glance around made my eyes bleed. So, a suggestion: Go Google SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE, dude, and memorize it!!!!!!

Comment #115163

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 27, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

(whimpering) oh….man….tell me you’re posting tongue-in-cheek, PLEASE!!!!

That’s what “[UD mode]” is meant to tell you, but unfortunately it only works for those who have been around these forums for a while. It’s an “insider’s” symbolism.

Oh, and I went to your tinyurl link Glen. Light fuschia text on tomato red background? Light red text on a dark red background??? Are you TRYING to make people leave your site in a hurry?? Even that cursory glance around made my eyes bleed. So, a suggestion: Go Google SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE, dude, and memorize it!!!!!!

Yeah, yeah, tiny little minds hate the psychedelic colors. I realize better now how much sheer prejudice there is against anything that doesn’t fit “COMPLIANCE”, and hope to change things to agree with the many tiny little minds out there when I can get past some unexpected complications, but really the problem is with you.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #115201

Posted by Karen on July 27, 2006 1:21 PM (e)

That’s what “[UD mode]” is meant to tell you, but unfortunately it only works for those who have been around these forums for a while. It’s an “insider’s” symbolism.

Well, it’s clear that I’m not an “insider” in these forums. Thanks for using it to make everyone feel so welcome. So what DOES it stand for? Uber dumbass?

Yeah, yeah, tiny little minds hate the psychedelic colors. I realize better now how much sheer prejudice there is against anything that doesn’t fit “COMPLIANCE”, and hope to change things to agree with the many tiny little minds out there when I can get past some unexpected complications, but really the problem is with you.

I wasn’t kidding or being overly snide. Those colors make the site almost impossible to read. It has nothing to do with the size of anyone’s mind. If you’re truly interested in having the site you listed be a genuine source of information then it behooves you to make the information ACCESSIBLE - you know, higher contrast, no red on red or red-green stuff for those with color-blindness, that sort of thing. Or are you so certain that everyone who would agree with you has perfect vision?? More like you’re just really deficient in basic courtesy to those who would visit your site.

What an jerk.

Comment #115203

Posted by Henry J on July 27, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

“UD” = “Uncommon Descent”, the name of that other blog.

Comment #115206

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 27, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

That’s what “[UD mode]” is meant to tell you, but unfortunately it only works for those who have been around these forums for a while. It’s an “insider’s” symbolism.

Well, it’s clear that I’m not an “insider” in these forums. Thanks for using it to make everyone feel so welcome. So what DOES it stand for? Uber dumbass?

In your case, sure.

It is not uncommon for people to use such marks on this forum, since there is no obligation that we make everything plain to just anyone who wants to bitch, whine, complain, and attack. If you were very bright you ought to recognize a joke even without the marks.

Yeah, yeah, tiny little minds hate the psychedelic colors. I realize better now how much sheer prejudice there is against anything that doesn’t fit “COMPLIANCE”, and hope to change things to agree with the many tiny little minds out there when I can get past some unexpected complications, but really the problem is with you.

I wasn’t kidding or being overly snide. Those colors make the site almost impossible to read. It has nothing to do with the size of anyone’s mind. If you’re truly interested in having the site you listed be a genuine source of information then it behooves you to make the information ACCESSIBLE - you know, higher contrast, no red on red or red-green stuff for those with color-blindness, that sort of thing. Or are you so certain that everyone who would agree with you has perfect vision?? More like you’re just really deficient in basic courtesy to those who would visit your site.

More like you’re deficient in intelligence and open-mindedness, not to mention your inability to display any sort of tact (you started it, moron). I said that I have intentions of changing it, since small-minded people like you and DaveTard have nothing more intelligent to do than to complain about the colors (plus there are people who do have actual trouble reading it, or so I hear), but you just want to bitch instead of dealing with what I wrote.

What an jerk.

You’re not only a jerk, you know.

And no matter that you started the pissing contest, I have no intention of continuing it beyond this. If you have more mindless criticisms, and want more to display your inability to recognize when someone is making fun of creationists/IDists, then go ahead and show your ignorance. I intend (but don’t promise) to disregard your unwarranted attacks, destructive criticisms, and general inability to make an intelligent remark.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #115207

Posted by Tara on July 27, 2006 1:48 PM (e)

OK–please cut out the personal attacks from all sides.

Comment #115219

Posted by steve s on July 27, 2006 2:17 PM (e)

I think Glen’s website constitutes a personal attack on my retinas.

Comment #131975

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Alright, it doesn’t look like you get very much competition on this site. So you want to see what a real YEC says? Lets examine one false and silly claim made on this site, I don’t have all night to point out every flaw:

1. Dr Morgan Greenwood can’t spell theorem. You’re right on the ball here. His spelling may be off, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the argument is.
2. Understanding the eye from a clinical perspective is irrelevant to the validity of evolution or ID. This is just silly. Its an obvious genetic fallacy, and an argument from an eye specialist expert probably has MORE weight than an Evolutionist Biologist (I use that term very loosely, I call them Evotionisms Abiologists) any day.
3. Perhaps Dr Greenwood would like to furnish a reference to the clinical application of irreducible complexity in ophthalmology. Well, in his absence, I’d be willing to. Check out: http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp. You may very well be enlightened at the results here (although something funny tells me not).
4. Google has no match for morgan greenwood ophthalmologist, morgan greenwood ophthalmology, or morgan greenwood eye. I’ve seen very few references to him myself. Perhaps he’s not very well known within the Scientific community. Nonetheless, it does not undersubstantiate his claims.

Comment #152099

Posted by Carlos Fried on December 28, 2006 3:59 PM (e)

PS3’s Portrait Slideshow Face Detection..

Comment #152537

Posted by Tyrese Hoover on December 31, 2006 1:18 PM (e)

Joint Ethiopian And Somalia Govt. Forces Advance Towards Mogadishu..

Comment #152579

Posted by Nathanial Hanley on December 31, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

PS3’s Portrait Slideshow Face Detection..