Annoying long-winded anti-science morons

[Darth Wong]

This is the latest creationist idiot. I don't want to bother wasting my time with this moron, so one of you can feel free:

Subject: Errors of Materialism
Name: Steve Jackman <chibarev03@hotmail.com>
Date: 9/17/2005 10:00 PM

I would not consider myself a convinced creationist but a historian and expert on intellectual history. The problem with theories such as evolution and the Big Bang is they are fundamentally biased because they were invented to create a viable materialism. Unfortunately, both fail and only succeed with those possessing a prejudice against Christianity and other religions. At best they are prejudiced and anti-religious and arose from Epicurean philosophy, especially Lucretius' book, De Rerum Natura. So the idea of scientific objectivity vs religious prejudice is a lie. In fact, there is nothing logical about materialism. Nothing cannot create something so the Big Bang as imagined by materialist scientists is impossible. At the same time, evolution has no proof that is not circular and deeply flawed, while all the problems pointed out by Darwin in The Origin of Species still exist such as a lack of any missing links. Also, the idea of a breeding pair randomly evolving across the species barrier and being able to find eachother and mate seems truly absurd or at least to start to require some type of design. The dogmatic materialism of scientists and those who look to them for truth is incredibly prejudiced and unscientific. The real loss has been people no longer understanding morality and how it helps people live happy lives. Now modern materialist historians write things so ignorant, absurd, and impractical that any old European peasant would laugh in their face. At the same time, university-inspired materialism is destroying the Democratic Party as people realize they do not want to elect people with values but no morality. Luckily for science more and more people are questioning the materialist biases that make us more ignorant and not enlightened.


------ eviromental variables ------
REMOTE ADDR: 65.31.192.51
BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)

I love these people who call themselves "experts", claim they're not shrill advocates for either side, and then immediately spout cookie-cutter creationist misinterpretations of Big Bang theory, speciation, the fossil record, ethics, etc. And is the concept of paragraphs really that hard to grasp?

[The Spartan]

I don't really have the background to effectively debate this person but a couple of things really stuck out at me:

...lack of any missing links

Bullshit. These "missing links," or "transitional species," whichever term you find preferable since they're almost interchangable, exist all around us. The various species of lung fish are a perfect example of this. I would classify more amphibians as transitional, or missing links, between water dwelling and land dwelling species. Hell, we are transitional species. How else would one explain the vestigial organs we possess such as our appendix and our tailbone?

Also, the idea of a breeding pair randomly evolving across the species barrier and being able to find eachother and mate seems truly absurd or at least to start to require some type of design.

Patently ridiculous strawman. He is subtly trying to say that speciation occurs across a single generation, in a single set of offspring. Something we all know to be false, so I won't go into the details here.

The dogmatic materialism of scientists and those who look to them for truth is incredibly prejudiced and unscientific.

Says the asshole who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it was strangling him to death. Our methods are dogmatic? WE are prejudiced and unscientific? We're not the ones making conclusions and then seeking corroborating evidence.

Now modern materialist historians write things so ignorant, absurd, and impractical that any old European peasant would laugh in their face.

I like how he doesn't bother providing any examples of these so called ignorant statements. Color me "surprised."

Luckily for science more and more people are questioning the materialist biases that make us more ignorant and not enlightened.

Questioning what? That science bases it's conclusions of verifiable, observable fact? How the fuck is this going to make us more ignorant or unenlightened? Are you seriously this fucking stupid?

How old is this fucker? From what I've read he's little more than a college student cobbling together pieces from several different loads of bullshit to attack reality and avoid facing that that the house of cards he's built up around himself can come crashing down at any moment. He's probably studied a few philosphy books and is now attempting some amatuer level bullshit based off of unsupportable claims rather than any kind of observable fact. I keep saying that... I wonder if that particular phrase will sink into their brains. And if they will understand it's meaning...

Observable fact... observable fact... observable fact...

[Darth Wong]

Whenever you see someone saying that there's no morality without God, you know that he's a fundie. If he says that he's not a full-blown fundie, he's a liar.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Oh yay, a Hotmail address. How quaint...

[Darth Servo]

I would not consider myself a convinced creationist but a historian and expert on intellectual history.

and an idiot.

The problem with theories such as evolution and the Big Bang is they are fundamentally biased because they were invented to create a viable materialism.

Out-right lie. They were both created to explain observations.

Unfortunately, both fail and only succeed with those possessing a prejudice against Christianity and other religions.

Then why do many followers of those religions including sertain sects of Christianity accept those theories?

At best they are prejudiced and anti-religious and arose from Epicurean philosophy, especially Lucretius' book, De Rerum Natura.

Would this guy care to explain the connection?

So the idea of scientific objectivity vs religious prejudice is a lie.

Empty claim. Lets see some facts for once.

In fact, there is nothing logical about materialism.

From dictionary.com

materialism:

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

Whats not logical about any of that? And one does NOT need to subscribe to materialism to accept evolution or big bang.

Nothing cannot create something so the Big Bang as imagined by materialist scientists is impossible.

Since Big Bang theory never says the universe was created from nothig, wouldn't this is another creationist strawman?

At the same time, evolution has no proof that is not circular and deeply flawed,

how is the fossle record circular? How is species homology circular?

while all the problems pointed out by Darwin in The Origin of Species still exist such as a lack of any missing links.

I take it the self proclaimed history expert has never visited a museum on natural history?

Also, the idea of a breeding pair randomly evolving across the species barrier and being able to find eachother and mate seems truly absurd or at least to start to require some type of design.

And since this is ANOTHER creationist strawman of Evolution, its worthless.

Evolution is about POPULATIONS. The group of animals evolves. And there is no magical "species barrier". Plants and animals DO cross breed and its a matter of degrees. Species 'A' has populations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 1 can interbreed with 2, 2 with 3, 3 with 4 and 4 with 5. However 1 cannont interbreed with 5 even though in some cases, they even occupy the same area. To further illustrate the point, 1 may only be 80% as effective at reproducing with 3 as it is with 2 (20% of the offspring die or are handicapped or infertile, etc).

The dogmatic materialism of scientists and those who look to them for truth is incredibly prejudiced and unscientific.

hmmm. Lots of mud throwing. No actual facts to back him up.

The real loss has been people no longer understanding morality and how it helps people live happy lives.

Oh yes, humainty was MUCH better when we were killing each other just for belonging to the wrong religion. Such WONDERFUL morality in "the good ole days" </sarcasm>

Now modern materialist historians write things so ignorant, absurd, and impractical that any old European peasant would laugh in their face.

I'm quite sure that dark age European peasants would laugh at the idea of letting heathens live. I still don't see why they have superior morality.

At the same time, university-inspired materialism is destroying the Democratic Party as people realize they do not want to elect people with values but no morality.

What does the democratic party have to do with whether evolution is valid or not? Can't this guy even stay on topic?

Luckily for science more and more people are questioning the materialist biases that make us more ignorant and not enlightened.

Like who? And by the way, this is an appeal to popularity, not that a fundy look like this would understand that concept.

[Akhlut]

What the hell does he mean "values without morality"? I thought those were essentially the same thing, more or less. Or, at least, they are highly dependent on one another. Can one really be said to have values without morality or vice-versa?

Further, I might not be enamored with the paragraph break, but at least I invite it over on a regular basis. I hate it when assholes refuse to break things up into mostly coherent idea chunks.

[Morilore]

What the hell does he mean "values without morality"? I thought those were essentially the same thing, more or less. Or, at least, they are highly dependent on one another. Can one really be said to have values without morality or vice-versa?

I think he's implicitly acknowledging that non-fundies can have value sets, well at the same time bigotedly refusing to refer to those value sets as "morality."

[Morilore]

Ghetto edit: It cracks me up how this moron appeals to the authority of fucking medieval European peasants.

[defanatic]

Completely ridiculous.

Morals have nothing to do with reality. Some diseases kill only particular races. This is immoral (racist), but it is true.

Also, taking a conclusion and then searching for evidence that supports that conclusion is what fundamentalists do, not science. By definition science is looking at facts and coming up with a theory that fits those facts.

[LMSx]

A lot of bullshit about Epicurean philosophy, materialism, objectivity and prejudice devolves into half-brained rants about evolution and the Democratic party. You could probably cut out the first half of that entire email as it's just pseudo-intellectual name dropping/wanking.

[Civil War Man]

With the part about the Big Bang, it's always fun to tell them about George Lemaitre, the priest who is credited with being one of the fathers of the Big Bang Theory.

Usually good for a short laugh before the fundie dismisses it outright either by ignoring it or chalking it up to him being a priest (and therefore being a Catholic).

[SyntaxVorlon]

That certainly sounds as if someone woke up on the wrong side of modern western philosophy this morning.

[CoyoteNature]

I would say he is probably a expert in something or another, probably so esoteric nobody's ever heard of it.

To me its a classic case of a specialist in some flaky field claiming certain things, simply because he lives in one reality(that of his own).

[NoXion]

This guy is priceless. If materialism is worthless, how is he even sure that his own existance is valid?

Morals have nothing to do with reality. Some diseases kill only particular races. This is immoral (racist), but it is true.

Are you sure about this? I thought human "races" were far too similar for diseases to differentiate between them.

[nickolay1]

Some races are predisposed to acquire certain diseases. For example, those of African ancestry are more likely to have sickle cell anemia (though it isn't contagious, of course), yet be immune to malaria.

[Nephtys]

Some races are predisposed to acquire certain diseases. For example, those of African ancestry are more likely to have sickle cell anemia (though it isn't contagious, of course), yet be immune to malaria.

That's the best known example. Because of an african-american tendancy (IIRC, 90+ percent) to have sickel-cell anemia, it's both a bad thing in terms of evolution... and a good thing, since Malaria can't take hold.

Another example I've heard of is asian populations, notably Chinese and Koreans with a tendancy to contract certain stomach bugs, which are usually carried through cow's milk, which they didn't have access to until comparatively recently.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That is down to genetics, not disease preference. The environment those blacks live in is favourable towards the recessive form of sickle cell because, unlike a full blown disorder, it allows the person to stay alive and hinders bloodborne parasites such as malaria or leishmania from taking hold.

It is accurate to say the human race since there are no races for humanity. The genetic stock is far too intermixed to differentiate at that level.

[NecronLord]

Some races are predisposed to acquire certain diseases. For example, those of African ancestry are more likely to have sickle cell anemia (though it isn't contagious, of course), yet be immune to malaria.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Sickle cell anemia is not a disease, any more than webbed toes are a disease. It's a mutation. It is more common in 'those of African ancestry' for a simple reason: it offered them an evolutionary advantage.

The sickle cells, while debilitating and hard to deal with, provide a disadvantage when you're not around malaria. However, the malaria paraise is unable to penetrate the sickle shaped blood cell. Hence, immunity.

If you don't live near malaria breeding grounds, this is a disadvantage, because it gives you less efficient blood. Hence, you're not likely to get any extra rumpy-pumpy and pass this genetic change on to your children. If however, you live in a malaria infested area, you are more likely to get rumpy pumpy because your rivals are getting killed in malaria outbreaks which you find 'annoying mosquito bites.'

Hence, the higher incidence of SCA in 'those of African ancestry' is nothing special. It's simply human adaptation to enviroment. As malaria becomes less of a killer, this will disappear back to background levels within the human population. It's got nothing to do with your skin colour, and everything to do with what bites you. Regionally increased SCA can indeed, be found in populations of different coloured humans.

The real loss has been people no longer understanding morality and how it helps people live happy lives.

Damn right. They used to be able to go and warm their hands at a nice witch burning and feel righteous. Now, people will point out that the old woman going up in smoke isn't a servant of a big red guy with horns, and people live less happy lives*.

*With the exception of those who weigh the same as a duck, who live much longer and happier lives without Idiotus' morals being in practice.

[Wicked Pilot]

I wonder if he knows who Georges Lemaitre was.

[nickolay1]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Sickle cell anemia is not a disease, any more than webbed toes are a disease. It's a mutation.

I'm well aware that it's a mutation. However, being a mutation does not exclude it from being a disease. In biology, "disease" refers to any (abnormal) condition of an organism which impairs function. In this case, the function of erythrocytes is impaired. Because of their shape, they have a tendency to become lodged in capillaries, which can cause organ damage, especially to the spleen. In fact, "sickle cell disease" is now the preferred term, as anemia is not the only symptom.
I'm also aware that it's not common among certain populations because of skin color but because of the evolutionary advantage. However, that's what it's most commonly associated with.

It is accurate to say the human race since there are no races for humanity. The genetic stock is far too intermixed to differentiate at that level.

Exactly.

[sketerpot]

Morals have nothing to do with reality. Some diseases kill only particular races. This is immoral (racist), but it is true.

The strongest and least variable morals come from evolution, which is a part of reality. So in a way, morals have a lot to do with reality.

Also, taking a conclusion and then searching for evidence that supports that conclusion is what fundamentalists do, not science. By definition science is looking at facts and coming up with a theory that fits those facts.

And this wanker is asserting that the scientists who support evolution and the Big Bang theory of cosmology were biased and unscientific. This is false, but necessary for his Tu Quoque fallacy.

[Kitsune]

Whenever you see someone saying that there's no morality without God, you know that he's a fundie. If he says that he's not a full-blown fundie, he's a liar.

Maybe as far as morality, you could point out the immoralities in the bible.

The court system gets very irrate these days if you try and practice "Suffer not a Witch to Live" yet if you follow the bible morality (and not pick and chose), it is clearer definated than many other bible moralities.

[Davis 51]

GAH! What is it with fundies and no paragraph breaks!

Y'know what happens when I start reading something wth no paragraph breaks? I stop reading it. So, anyone who is trying to send me a message will get shut out. Then they will declare 'moral victory' or some other crap, and walk away.
For the rest of us, life goes on.
Anyways, I didn't have to read the rest to know what he was up to.
It was clear what his intentions are when he started out with "I would not consider myself a convinced creationist but a historian and expert on intellectual history."

[NecronLord]

I'm well aware that it's a mutation. However, being a mutation does not exclude it from being a disease.

This isn't Star Trek. You don't 'aquire' mutations as communicable diseases as your post indicated. You either inherit them or you don't.

[nickolay1]

I apologize, I should have been more concise.