14 Responses to “Open Thread II”

1. edarrell Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 3:31 am

   One might wonder whether Forrest Mims attended this conference, and if not, why not?

   From Utah's #2 newspaper:

   http://deseretnews.com/dn/view...

   WASHINGTON "” Pandemic illnesses are not just something out of a Stephen King novel but a real possibility for which local communities need to prepare and plan, Health and Human Service Secretary Mike Leavitt said Tuesday.
   Leavitt spoke at the U.S. News and World Report Health Summit, which focused on emergency preparedness and planning at the National Press Club.
   "We don't know what the next one will be, and we don't know when it will be," he said. "What we do now will be dramatically important if it occurs."
   Leavitt said pandemic diseases are difficult to discuss because anything said prior to an outbreak can be considered "alarmist" and anything said after "seems inadequate," so his job is to find a balance between the two. He said the country is "overdue and underprepared" for a serious outbreak and reminded an audience made up of many in the health industry professionals.
   "Pandemics are a fact of life," Leavitt said. "Any community that fails to prepare with the expectation that the state or federal government can come to their aid will be tragically wrong. There is no way you can respond to every hometown at the same time."

Comment by edarrell — April 21, 2006 @ 3:31 am

2. derwood Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 8:28 am

   I see that some things never change -

   "Derwood writes:

   So IS ID 'science'?

   a) - Are you interested in telic ideas or are you here trolling?

   b) - This question is right off the topic. MikeGene isn't discussing the proper labelling of ID in this thread.

   c) - The question itself is probably meaningless, or at the very least a purely social one. "

   I am later 'banned' from the thread because the all-knowing, all-seeing mighty "Mike Gene" and his amazing psychologizing skills had determined that I must have been "trolling."

   Of course, it is all very common for ID creationists to simply label someone a 'troll' or to label their questions as 'trolling' when they do not like what the answer they should give will be.

   Makes it easier to avoid the truth that way.

   But yes, "Is ID science?" wasa legitimate question, and despite the vigorous attempts to declare the question 'off topic' and 'trolling', it actually lay at the heart of the issue in the 'PZ and tenure' thread.

   That the amazing minds of the ID advocates did not see that is a real mystery…

Comment by derwood — April 21, 2006 @ 8:28 am

3. Doug Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 10:27 am

   derwood,
   If you can't see why that question was off of the topic then you were ignorantly trolling. Don't blame that on Mike though, it's not his fault your question deviated from the point of the thread.

Comment by Doug — April 21, 2006 @ 10:27 am

4. Guts Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pm

   "Derwood" your question was answered, in the second post in the thread. Here's how you know you're a psycho troll, you ignore the answer and convince yourself that you were banned because your question was oh so thought provoking and superior in it's intellectual power. You sound as crazy as the time cube guy.

   "ID stupid, you can't know Truth."

Comment by Guts — April 21, 2006 @ 12:26 pm

5. Deuce Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pm

   Heh, heh, Guts, wasn't I the one who introduced you to Timecube?

Comment by Deuce — April 21, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

6. Guts Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 2:00 pm

   Yeah rofl

Comment by Guts — April 21, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

7. Art Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 9:20 pm

   Ouch

Comment by Art — April 21, 2006 @ 9:20 pm

8. carbon14atom Says:
   April 21st, 2006 at 11:17 pm

   Did anybody here catch this article?
   http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

   If you did, what was your reaction to it? First thing I thought of myself was God cursing the serpent to crawl on its belly…

Comment by carbon14atom — April 21, 2006 @ 11:17 pm

9. Douglas Says:
   April 22nd, 2006 at 8:41 am

   That was my thought, too. Once again, the Bible is scientifically confirmed.

Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 8:41 am

10. carbon14atom Says:
    April 22nd, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    the more I think about it, the more I am ashamed. This story has been a glass of ice water in the face for me. I have found myself acting poorly. In the zeal of my faith, I disregarded the possiblity of actual merit for evolution, dismissing it as the religion of the devil. I still have grave emotional reservations about it, but I can not longer deny the POSSIBLE validity of some version of it. God cursed the snake to crawl on its belly, and here we have, apparently, a snake with "legs"

Comment by carbon14atom — April 22, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

11. Art Says:
    April 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 am

    I'm gonna have to modify my opinions about lawyers. Eric Rothschild, from this site:

    Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. It's the immune system. It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

Comment by Art — April 23, 2006 @ 9:22 am

12. Art Says:
    April 25th, 2006 at 10:17 pm

    Behe's credibility, RIP

Comment by Art — April 25, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

13. Douglas Says:
    April 26th, 2006 at 5:41 am

    It has come to my attention that most, probably all, IDists had bad experiences in science class as youngsters. Since it would then be reasonable to see ID as our revenge upon science, it must be true that it is.

Comment by Douglas — April 26, 2006 @ 5:41 am

14. AnOtherOpinion Says:
    April 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Dear Jack,

    Unfortunately, a series of statements were left in a previous thread framed as fact which are actually a result of your ignorance of Jehovah's Witnesses and the way they promote their policies regarding the non-acceptance of blood transfusions.

    If someone were to take a pint of blood and put it in a device that separated out the water and then drank the water would they have drank blood? Of course not. Since the water in a pint of donated blood isn't blood then maybe there are other things in a pint of donated blood that isn't actually blood. And perhaps these non-blood items are okay for a Christian to take. That is the JW position in a nutshell.

    Your ignorance demonstrated in this post is in the form of belief that they think there is something wrong with blood itself, and that this is why they avoid accepting it. Their prohibition is 100% based on use of blood because they believe blood to be sacred.

    Given this disparity between the actual position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood and your statement of their position, I fully understand the ignorant conclusions you arrived at.

    In your illustration (presumably meant as a defense of their position) you miss the vital point that water derived from blood remains"”according to their doctrine on the sanctity of blood"”a misuse of blood. This would be true regardless of the fraction derived from blood. In any case, if blood is used to obtain the water it would not be abstaining from blood to partake of the water that came from it.

    The Scriptural prohibition they emphasize in Acts is only part of their dogma, the other part is from the OT in Leviticus where the people were instructed to pour the blood onto the ground (in all cases except the performance of specific religious rites). Certainly, such a dogma is not satisfied by permitting the usage of any products derived from blood.

    You confess that you are neither an expert on their dogma regarding blood, nor on their misrepresentation of medical facts as a means to encourage compliance with their doctrinal position. I am an expert on both.

    I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 20 years, my father served on the local Hospital Liason Committee from the time it was formed up until today (and likely will continue to do so). He has been a Congregation Servant (and then elder) for over 40 years.

    I have read and analyzed the information provided to health care professionals"”which the rank and file publisher never sees, as well as all DVDs and brochures related to the blood issue since the first one was published (1/4 page-size booklet). I have copies of each of these publications in my personal library.

    Something very important I forgot to mention. If a JW child needs a blood transfusion and the parents refuse to give permission then the hospital will get a court order and a blood transfusion will be administered to the child. So those claiming that JW children are dying because of their parents religious belief don't know what they are talking about.

    I hate to be the one to tell you, but this is both a misrepresentation and an untruth rolled into one.

    First, the misrepresentation: In cases of massive blood loss there is no time to get a court order, such a measure is only possible in cases where the life threatening condition presented to physicians allows for the acquisition of such an order. It appears you have bought into Jehovah's Witnesses press about themselves. Their lawyers fight such orders tooth and nail, thereby limiting or negating any potential effects that the treatment might have for the child. Often such tactics result in death even after the treatment is administered, which is then used as "evidence" in local lore that blood transfusions aren't life-saving, after all.

    Second, the untruth: Frequently such sought court orders are not awarded. Even more frequently, due to the nature of the injuries presented they are not even sought"”court orders take time that the patient rarely has.

    Based on these two realities of which you seem to be ignorant when you arrived at your conclusion, and of which I have frequently been a first-hand witness, I can state with quite a lot of authority that you don't know what you are talking about. I think that once you consider these facts that you have thus far ignored, you might revise your assertions somewhat.

    I find it interesting that no one here is complaining about the Christian scientists. They reject all medical treatment and rely on God to heal them.

    You did not introduce the subject until this post. However, although I disagree with their decision I respect adherence to doctrine applied consistently more than adherence to doctrinal policy that is not clearly understood, is inconsistent, undergoes modifications, has exceptions for certain medical conditions, and which is supported in part by misrepresentation of secular facts.

    That said, I believe any parent who does not value the life of their child enough to decide in favor of life over death for their child should not have children"”because those children are endangered by being in such a parent's custody. This would apply to Christian Scientists just as much as to Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Maybe you can stay on point in your responses to me instead of relying on your confessed ignorance when convenient, while asserting statements of fact that demonstrate your ignorance. Maybe you can demonstrate that your mind is keen enough to avoid the logical fallacy of misdirecting to a worse example as a way of mitigating the error of the example under discussion. Maybe I can keep respecting you. We shall see.

    With cautious respect,
    AnOtherOpinion

Comment by AnOtherOpinion — April 29, 2006 @ 5:47 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.