Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Penn Jillette on What's The Harm Website...
Friend o ' Reason Penn Jillette talks up the very interesting website What's the Harm?, which lays out bad consequences stemming from belief in various things, ranging from acupuncture to numerology to UFOs (most of the site documents deaths related to stupid or anti-scientific systems of thought.
Worth watching and checking out:
Paul|2.6.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Acupuncturists believe that there is such a thing as 'bad' acupuncture. Like if they hit the wrong points, they'll make the cats really huge...or something.
|2.6.09 @ 4:16PM|#
I'd have a great deal more respect for Gillette if he hadn't named his son Valvoline or something similar. Someone who'd do that to his son must not be someone you'd want to share an elevator with.
|2.6.09 @ 4:18PM|#
The problem with presenting a rational argument against an
irrational belief, is that it doesn't impress the fool you're
arguing with.
This sounds like a good idea, we'll see if it can have an
impact.
Kunal|2.6.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Thomas Jackson: His daughter is named Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette, and his son is Zolten Penn Jillette. You're totally right, this guy is a douchebag.
cls|2.6.09 @ 4:32PM|#
The website is fairly interesting but confuses the harm done by
silly beliefs to the harm others do to people who hold silly
beliefs. So people who are arrested for Holocaust denial in the
unfree countries of Europe (when it comes to speech) are listed as
if their beliefs hurt them and not the prosecution inflicted on
them. This same premise would list being gay as harmful because
bigots beat up gay people.
The site would be much stronger if it made some distinction between
people who suffer because they do stupid things based on stupid
beliefs. Dying of cancer because you think the Virgin Mary would
heal you is one kind of harm inflicted on yourself through
stupidity. Being arrested for believing the wrong thing is a very
different kind of harm inflicted on you because other people are
stupid.
Paul|2.6.09 @ 4:32PM|#
His daughter is named Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette, and his
son is Zolten Penn Jillette. You're totally right, this guy is a
douchebag.
So that makes Frank Zappa a douchebag, too? Or at least a Jr.
Honorary Douchebag?
jj|2.6.09 @ 4:54PM|#
What's the harm in smoking tobacco? Oh wait, reason SUPPORTS tobacco use, but is against acupuncture (a blind-test proven pain reliever), I get it. Or do I?
|2.6.09 @ 5:01PM|#
He named his kids Moxie and Zolten. How is that even remotely douchebagy? It's not like he named them Imelda and Mao. Or is it a sin to give your kid a non-biblical name?
Egosumabbas|2.6.09 @ 5:04PM|#
I fully support people's rights to do stupid things as long as
they're at least arm's length away while doing so.
I'm wary that this site might be abused by nanny staters for their
own authoritarian purposes.
ev|2.6.09 @ 5:12PM|#
I would, personally, fucking LOVE for my middle name to be
CrimeFighter.
You'd be the equivalent of an X-Man in grade school. Then later,
when you get a job in the real world, you have a built-in
awesomeness.
Jim CrimeFighter Clay--Janitor.
Hank CrimeFighter McCoy--District Attorney.
Just the possibility of putting "CrimeFighter" on your office door
or your card...jesus I'm jealous.
Fuck it. I'll do it anyway.
Egosumabbas|2.6.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Wow I'm reading through this site and it's totally douchy and
antifreedom. Check this out from the FAQ:
"Unwilling victims notwithstanding, we firmly believe in the
principle of not blaming the victim. Many people come by their
assumptions or beliefs not by conscious choice, but by societal
forces, parental ignorance, or other forms of indoctrination. Who
is to say that any one of these victims might have been persuaded
to drop their irrational beliefs, had they been reached in
time?"
Thought police! We have determined that your belief system is a
danger to others. Please report to re-education camp alpha for
deprogramming.
Betsy|2.6.09 @ 5:13PM|#
The specific homebirth anecdotes cited on this site would fit
more appropriately in the category "what's the harm in... being a
religious zealot." Most of the couples I know (self included, along
with my hyperanalytical software engineer spouse) who have chosen
homebirth are, in fact, exceptionally analytical consumers of
healthcare who do not hesitate seeking it when appropriate for
themselves and their families.
Overall, what I don't like about this site is its creator purports
to champion critical thinking, but presents a serious bias in the
topics he's chosen to share. Anecdotes about alternative health
choices, but NONE about allopathic care? Anecdotes about the
consequences of vaccine-denial, but no anecdotes about vaccine
harm?
If he thinks western medicine is even remotely scientific, let
alone evidence-based, he needs a reality check. Every healthcare
consumer needs to be JUST as analytical about their allopathic
medical care as he apparently proposes they should be about the
alternatives.
The premise of the site might be interesting, but the
implementation is so flawed and unrealistically ambitious, I'm
afraid its effect is quite the opposite of what its creator
intends. This site is just what we need: More hysterical anecdotes
to support uninformed people making wild claims with no supporting
data.
Dweezel and Moon-Unit Zappa|2.6.09 @ 5:16PM|#
"Thomas Jackson: His daughter is named Moxie CrimeFighter
Jillette, and his son is Zolten Penn Jillette. You're totally
right, this guy is a douchebag."
We respectfully disagree.
Paul|2.6.09 @ 5:17PM|#
acupuncture (a blind-test proven pain reliever)
Wrong-o, Mary Lou
Link within the link:
Study: Fake acupuncture helps ease low-back pain
Fake actupuncture. That's some evidence of acupuncture as tought in
specific courses.
highnumber|2.6.09 @ 6:15PM|#
Egosumabbas,
So if someone is unaware that she is doing something harmful to
herself, it is anti freedom to tell her, but it is pro freedom to
blame her when she does harm herself?
|2.6.09 @ 7:46PM|#
I'm a big fan of Penn's, and I don't give a damn what he names
his kids. Without Penn Jillette, I'd have nothing to post on
Monkey
Tuesday. Besides, he's one of five libertarians in
entertainment.
Teller's great, too.
|2.6.09 @ 8:18PM|#
What's the harm in smoking tobacco? Oh wait, reason SUPPORTS
tobacco use, but is against acupuncture (a blind-test proven pain
reliever), I get it. Or do I?
Did anyone say that acupuncture should be illegal or punitively
taxed?
Wow I'm reading through this site and it's totally douchy and
antifreedom. Check this out from the FAQ:
"Unwilling victims notwithstanding, we firmly believe in the
principle of not blaming the victim. Many people come by their
assumptions or beliefs not by conscious choice, but by societal
forces, parental ignorance, or other forms of indoctrination. Who
is to say that any one of these victims might have been persuaded
to drop their irrational beliefs, had they been reached in
time?"
Thought police! We have determined that your belief system is a
danger to others. Please report to re-education camp alpha for
deprogramming.
Did they say it should be illegal to advocate absurd beliefs?
I'd be strongly opposed to that. But I support efforts to educate
people and expose them to the evidence/arguments against the
irrational ideas with which they've been indoctrinated.
Robert|2.6.09 @ 8:34PM|#
Did Penn recommend this site because it's side-achingly funny? I
didn't go into all the entries, but that's at least how most of
them look, and I recommend them for that reason. I imagine it's
satire of the same sort that would tell a story of someone's
smoking pot and leading by a far-fetched chain of events to dire
consequences ostensibly of the evil weed. I especially recommend
the entries on GPS! (Reminds me of a "Grin And Bear It" cartoon:
"Next time remember: the red lines are roads, the blue lines are
rivers!")
All the anecdotes boil down to one or more persons being a dork who
can be connected somehow to a belief or disbelief in or reliance or
lack of reliance on something.
Robert|2.6.09 @ 8:44PM|#
The website is fairly interesting but confuses the harm done by silly beliefs to the harm others do to people who hold silly beliefs. So people who are arrested for Holocaust denial in the unfree countries of Europe (when it comes to speech) are listed as if their beliefs hurt them and not the prosecution inflicted on them. This same premise would list being gay as harmful because bigots beat up gay people.
I think they were trying to be funny, because they have entries
just like that, only instead of being gay it's believing in or
denying evolution, plus some other things that people got beaten or
killed for either believing or disbelieving. I think one got beaten
up for believing in evolution, and another killed for disbelieving
it -- plus jobs lost and a lawsuit. Also someone who beat up (or
killed, I forgot which) a relative who believed she'd
over-vaccinated her own child and caused autism thereby.
If you took the site seriously (which I don't think we're meant to,
especially given Penn's sense of humor), the overall lesson would
appear to be that disagreements are evil.
|2.6.09 @ 9:52PM|#
The comments by those who think naming your child Stereo
Crimefighter Cockroach really cool speaks for both their
intelligence and self esteem. If only their parents had named them
that or better yet if they changed their names legally to those
probably very fitting names.
These people like Gillette need lithium. I really good care what he
names his kids or what he does just so long as he isn't loose on a
street or capable of inflicting his beliefs on me.
As for the numnuts who believe praying is dull, you can bet
everyone of the flight that went down in the Hudson wasn't praying
to the Cosmic Donut or The Science Dept. chairman.
But tinfoil hats are required wwear for the PC crowd. The dangerous
self indulgences that these leftwingnuts engage in are mere
banality packaged as bombast.
|2.7.09 @ 11:20AM|#
I'm sure most of this site is good, but the first thing I looked
at was the GPS navigation section. I know, not very sexy, but I
thought almost every case listed was more a case of personal
stupidity than anything else. I wasn't very sympathetic.
What's the
harm in GPS Navigation?
TJ is a wack-job|2.7.09 @ 11:23AM|#
"I'd have a great deal more respect for Gillette if he hadn't
named his son Valvoline or something similar. Someone who'd do that
to his son must not be someone you'd want to share an elevator
with."
Agreed 100%. People shouldn't be able to give their kids moronic
names like Valvoline... or Thomas Jackson.
jeremy kareken|2.7.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Creationists gave us the Sistine chapel, Jesus Candles and the Gregorian Calendar. Can't we cut them a little slack? I mean, they're cute and all. And they've at least learned to make their poopoos on the potty. Look on the bright side.
zoltan|2.7.09 @ 2:46PM|#
The problem with presenting a rational argument against an
irrational belief, is that it doesn't impress the fool you're
arguing with.
"You can't reason a man out of what he wasn't reasoned into."
Moonbat Zappa|2.7.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Yeah and Hussein ought to banned.
Look at all the lemmings who voted for the Obamessiah.
Veritas|2.7.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Ever notice the people who worship at the altar of secularism
are the first to discard scientific testing when applied to their
beliefs.
I loved Dawkins who believes life simply came into existence (but
it couldn't have been God).
Rather he seems to believe a tornado went through a junkyard and
formed a complete 747. Yeah right. These people wear the biggest
blinders.
|2.7.09 @ 6:37PM|#
Ever notice the people who worship at the altar of
secularism are the first to discard scientific testing when applied
to their beliefs.
I loved Dawkins who believes life simply came into existence (but
it couldn't have been God).
Rather he seems to believe a tornado went through a junkyard and
formed a complete 747. Yeah right. These people wear the biggest
blinders.
Dude, Richard Dawkins has addressed this argument plenty of times.
His reply is convincing and I've never heard a compelling
counter-argument to his response. Here's one lecture where he
addresses it:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2989,Richard-Dawkins-Lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,Richard-Dawkins
(There are 6 videos and its somewhere towards the middle. I don't
remember exactly where though.)
Here's a summary of his argument:
People often misunderstand and think that evolution holds that
complex life forms arose purely by chance. They argue that if you
randomly scramble the parts of some complex body part (like an eye)
it is extremely unlikely that you would get anything that sees or
does anything useful. Therefore, they say, evolution can't be
true.
This would be a good argument, if evolution held that such complex
things arose by chance; but evolution doesn't say that. Evolution
provides an account of how the world could start out with less
complex things, and, through a process of natural selection, end up
with more complex things over a long period of time. This account
has been corroborated by a lot of evidence.
The reason complex life forms need an explanation
is that their complexity makes them, by definition, statistically
unlikely to "just happen" or "just exist by chance". So in order to
explain such things, one needs to show how they could be caused by
something that isn't statistically unlikely to
"just happen".
Evolution does this. But saying "God created it" does not. In order
to design or create anything, God would need to be very complex.
And therefore it is statistically unlikely that God would "just
happen". So that leaves the improbable complexity in existence
unexplained. How did a statistically unlikely, complex, creative
deity come into existence?
Dangerman|2.7.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Check out the quackwatch.com article on homeopathy. I had noooo idea the HP methodology was so screwed up.
Betsy|2.7.09 @ 11:35PM|#
Hey VM fewer than 10% of adults are up to date on their vaccines. Put your money where your mouth is and take the needle in YOUR ass. Yeah I'm laying odds you're not one of the conscientious few.
|2.8.09 @ 12:51AM|#
Interesting how people who criticize others for "not thinking
critically" fail to take their own advice. I looked over that site,
and in areas where I knew something about the science involved the
site's claims were way off. A few problems I noticed:
• The "chelation and vitamin C lady from Wichita" gets put in
multiple categories, so her case is listed at least twice. They
claim that vitamin C caused her kidney to fail, but offer no
evidence to support this - either in general or in the woman's
particular case.
• Anyone who doesn't have a life could take the time to make a
similar site listing people who died in hospitals because of
mistakes made while administering "mainstream" medical treatments.
Apparently, this doesn't make the victims fools: the
"establishment" is never wrong.
• The site comes pretty close to advocating government action
against people who choose alternative therapies for themselves or
their children. Totally un-libertarian, to say the least.
• I'd bet that many of the cancer patients who try alternative
therapies have a very poor prognosis, and can't be helped by the
current standard of care anyhow.
|2.8.09 @ 4:32AM|#
The site comes pretty close to advocating government action
against people who choose alternative therapies for themselves or
their children. Totally un-libertarian, to say the
least.
I'd generally oppose government action against people who make such
decisions for themselves. And I'd generally oppose
limits on their freedom to make an informed decision to do
so.
But when you talk about people making decisions for their
children (who, presumably, have not obtained the legal age
at which they can grant valid consent, nor is their expression of
consent required for treatment) there is another person's rights at
stake aside from the parent or guardian. In that case, it is
perfectly appropriate for the state to impose limits on the
discretion of the parent or guardian. And scientific evidence (from
double-blind tests and so forth) is relevant in determining what
those limits should be.
|2.8.09 @ 10:24AM|#
"And scientific evidence (from double-blind tests and so forth)
is relevant in determining what those limits should be."
Yes, and we all know that the state always conscientiously uses the
most rigorous scientific evidence for these purposes.
|2.8.09 @ 10:57AM|#
Yes, and we all know that the state always conscientiously
uses the most rigorous scientific evidence for these
purposes.
What's your point?
And is it a point that contradicts any of the points that I
made?
Neu Mejican|2.8.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Paul,
Regarding your "fake acupuncture" as a debunk of the trials that
show acupuncture to work...
It is impossible to tell from your links what constituted "fake"
acupuncture.
Here's one that gives the specifics.
https://www.cebp.nl/media/m583.pdf
Acupuncture that doesn't puncture doesn't work as well.
Clearly acupuncture doesn't work for the reasons the creators of
the technique thought it worked, but even the study you cite points
out that it works better than traditional western treatments for
lower back pain.
The evidence on acupuncture's effectiveness is fairly solid. At
least compared to many common treatments.
Ed|2.8.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Wow, judging by these comments, many people who read reason (or at least comment on it online) are more gullible than I expected. Color me a light shade of disillusioned.
Ed|2.8.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Betsy,
Vaccination among adults age 18-49, 2007:
Influenza 37.3%
Pneumococcal 32.8%
Tetanus 57.2%
Shingles 0.8%
Hepatitis A 12.1%
Hepatitis B 23.4%
HPV (female) 2.4%
[Source: http://tinyurl.com/ddcble]
That's a far cry from "fewer than 10%", especially when you
consider that the first three are most important (shingles is just
chickenpox, while hep A and B and HPV can be easily avoided).
You may try to claim the unvaccinated remainder for your
anti-vaccine cult, but I think you'll find most of them are already
dedicated members the Church of Procrastination.
|2.8.09 @ 4:56PM|#
Ed,
God knows that ANYONE who questions the validity of the state's
vaccine schedule MUST be a tremendously gullible individual. Or, as
you put it, part of the anti-vaccine cult.
These are probably some of the same losers who questioned that
there were WMD in Iraq too; you know the pro-Saddam cult.
Betsy|2.8.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Ed, your list of what vaccines are recommended for adults is out
of date. It's missing MMR boosters and DTP (every 10 years). The
10% adult vaccination rate is per CDC. My point stands. Vaccinate
the vaccinators. The vaccine load on infants (an immunologically
vulnerable segment of the population) is not something any
conscientious parent should lightly dismiss.
Further, the presumption that I have an anti-vaccine stance simply
because I advocate an analytical approach to healthcare is, uh,
somewhat less than analytical on your part.
I have three children all up to date on their vaccines. But not
after a lot of research and thoughtful consideration of the risks
vs. benefits (and frankly, I still think Hep B for infants is more
than a little overzealous).
Orange Line Destroyer|2.8.09 @ 9:55PM|#
BG;
Fairly good comment but why should the state superceed the
authority of the parent?
If it can why have parents?
Where does this authority end?
And if they can overule parent why not spouses, individuals, or
anyone they wish?
Sorry but no sale.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.8.09 @ 9:59PM|#
BG:
Dawkins is a nut case who makes a better case for Tarrot cards than
science.
Snakeoil salesmen sound more informed than Dawkins.
Even Darwin admitted he couldn't explain the gaps in his theory
although Dawkins gives us the BIG BANG theory of creation.
Bang the eye was created. Bang the brain happened. Bang the 747
just happened.
Right care to elaborate what makes you believe in someone whose
explanation is it just happened.
Curious George|2.8.09 @ 11:03PM|#
Everyone can nurse their own prejudicies. Jillette believes
apractise the Chinese have employed successuflly is bunk. Fine. He
doesn't demonstrate why such a people would employ such a practise
or why it would have spread throughout the world.
But we do have Jillette's worldview to judge.
I mean what's not to like about Zoltan?
Hate to be his son, or is it his daughter.
Acorn eater|2.9.09 @ 12:05AM|#
Have you checked out J's website? Talk about the outer limits. Reality as defined by J.
|2.9.09 @ 12:14AM|#
Orange Line Destroyer
Fairly good comment but why should the state superceed the
authority of the parent?
Because sometimes the parent wishes to violate the rights of the
child; either intentionally, or by selecting a course of action so
irrational that they should know that the result will be avoidable
harm. Under certain circumstances, eschewing modern medicine in
favor of "alternative" treatments would fit that category.
For example, suppose a minor develops a case of Tuberculosis; and
the parents say to the doctors "You may not give our child any
antibiotics! Our religion says that only spiritual healing is
acceptable!" The doctors should be allowed to provide treatment
without the parents' consent in that case. (I'm less concerned with
who pays for the treatment than with the child's right to receive
treatment despite parental objections.)
If it can why have parents?
We are kind of stuck with parents. What is the alternative?
But the fact that society has to have parents to produce and raise
offspring does not mean the parents' authority is
(or should be) absolute.
Where does this authority end?
In general, I would say the goal of the state should be to keep the
minor alive, prevent serious physical harm, and ensure that the
minor has sufficient knowledge of the world to be admitted to full
adult freedom in the future. I'm not sure what I'd say about
psychological harm.
Its hard to be precise about where I would "draw the line" without
an overly-long comment. But if you want to give examples of
specific hypothetical (or real) situations and ask whether I think
the state should intervene, I'm up for that. That might help you
figure out where I stand on whatever concerns you.
And if they can overule parent why not spouses, individuals, or
anyone they wish?
I'm not sure where you are going with "spouses", but if a sane
adult individual makes an informed decision to refuse scientific
treatment, or undergo bogus treatment, or do something to
himself/herself that appears self-destructive to others; that is
that person's right.
In that case, the person consenting to the decision is the
same person who is affected by the decision. That is not so with
parental decisions regarding a minor's medical treatment, which is
why parents should have less discretion in this area than if they
were deciding for themselves.
|2.9.09 @ 1:38AM|#
Orange Line Destroyer
As for your second comment:
Dawkins is a nut case who makes a better case for Tarrot cards
than science.
Snakeoil salesmen sound more informed than Dawkins.
Even Darwin admitted he couldn't explain the gaps in his theory
although Dawkins gives us the BIG BANG theory of
creation.
I take it you didn't watch the video I linked to. And I guess my
comment wasn't clear enough to dispel this:
Bang the eye was created. Nope. Bang the brain
happened. Not correct. Bang the 747 just happened.
Strike three.
Right care to elaborate what makes you believe in someone whose
explanation is it just happened.
No, but I will elaborate on the point that evolution
doesn't claim that those things "just
happened".
The complex human eye is composed of many simpler parts. For an
organism with a more primitive version of the eye, it is not that
improbable of an event that one of those simple parts would be
added to its offspring's eyes due to random mutation. Certainly
such simple additions are likely if we have a lot of organisms
reproducing over a long period of time.
If this trait, of having one more simple part added to the eye,
helped the organism survive long enough to reproduce (and reproduce
more than its competitors without the trait), this would create
more members of future generations with that trait. This higher
rate or reproduction by organisms with the new part would mean that
over time, most or all of the animals in that species would have
that trait.
The modern eye is the product of many simple additions
being made to simple, primitive, light-reacting parts of animal
populations through this process. The first light-reacting animal
body part must have been simple enough that having it arise through
random mutation was not too much of a stretch (and it would be
very from the modern eye). There is an extremely long time
period in which this can occur, and it only needs to happen once if
that organism reproduces successfully.
The brain evolved in a similar way: from simple nervous systems, to
ganglia, to fusing of ganglia into a primative brain, to
enlargements over a very long period of time.
Evolution is supported by a large amount of scientific evidence:
fossil records, the distribution of species (the geographic
isolation of different groups from each other is related to their
genetic and physical differences), lab experiments with bacteria
(which reproduce in mush shorter time periods so you can see the
changes faster), molecular biology (examine a gene in different
organisms in order to group species into some taxonomy and you'll
get a specific grouping scheme; pick any other gene at random for
the some process and you'll get the same grouping scheme),
etc.
If that doesn't convince you, I would just say watch the video (and
some other of his lectures). He'll probably explain it more
clearly. Or read this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
|2.9.09 @ 2:11AM|#
BG,
Do you distinguish between a parent who withholds medical treatment
for religious reasons (the TB antibiotic example) and one who
disagrees with their local doctors (or 'the medical establishment'
in general) about a particular course of treatment.
In the TB case, it's beyond dispute that the antibiotics will save
the child's life. In cases of kids with cancer, though,
chemotherapy is by no means certain to help. I think the parent
should make the call here.
The problems with cervical cancer vaccine, and the inclination of
some politicians to make it mandatory, probably deserves a whole
thread to itself.
|2.9.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Do you distinguish between a parent who withholds medical
treatment for religious reasons (the TB antibiotic example) and one
who disagrees with their local doctors (or 'the medical
establishment' in general) about a particular course of
treatment.
If there is significant evidence that an alternative treatment
works, or significant reason to doubt that the mainstream treatment
will work, I'd be more likely to support parental discretion. There
are also quality of life issues associated with some treatments and
that may need to be factored in.
But it is not only religiously based parental vetoes that
I am opposed to. If the parents' decision is supported only by
pseudo-science or pseudo-medicine. For example, suppose we have a
TB case again; and this time the parent say they accept
antibiotics, but they want the kid to have only "homeopathic
antibiotics" in which the active ingredient is diluted to levels
too low to have an effect. My thinking on that is the same as the
"spiritual healing" example.
I'm not that familiar with the studies regarding chemotherapy for
kids with cancer, so I'll reserve judgement on that for now.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.9.09 @ 11:18AM|#
BG:
Wow BG how smart you are. Did you bother to read Darwin, even he
admits he cannot explain how the eye developed. But I see you have
the answer.
As usual we see those who condemn oithers who don't partake of
their Kool Aid condemn other views as pseudo science. Fossil
evidence-zero. Why have they been no new species? Why have we no
evidence of evolution. Cmon just give us one example of where this
display is.
Bold assertion is the last refuge of the uninformed and kool aid
drinkers.
Now please explain who made you part of the Star Chamber. There is
zero evidence for Darwin as even he admitted.
Dawkins is a low life who is a base fraud. The "science" you
promote smacks of eugenics and other false sciences. But then
Darwinism was the basis of Sanger a noted racist. It also
understandable to see why racists of all striped embraced
Darwinism, good folks like Stalin and Hitler who worshipped your
kind of "science." I suggest you peddle your theories elsewhere. If
unproven they remain theories, just like those people who believe
in the mothership.
I also found your "quality of life" phrase worth looking at. The
National Socialist used it as an excuse for eliminating those with
lives not worth living. But of course we realize that parents
should be excluded from these decisions in favor of people
like....you?
Excuse me while puke. If parents make a decision that is adverse
they can be prosecuted. But I trust parents better then the
compassionate who will determine what lives are worth living.
We ahve all ready seen how compassionate people who always put up
the "children" are.
Urkobold™|2.9.09 @ 1:08PM|#
The Urkobold™ MADE BG PART OF THE STAR CHAMBER.
The Urkobold™ DID NOT MAKE EVERYONE WITH "Orange Line" IN THEIR
NAME A DUNDERHEAD.
|2.9.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Orange Line Destroyer
You obviously haven't read the article I linked to in my 1:38 am
comment, or listened to any of Dawkins's lectures where he
addressed what you're saying, or thought clearly about evolution at
all. I'll post some relevant excerpts from the article as well as
other sources, lest anyone think that the nonsense you are spouting
doesn't have an answer.
Wow BG how smart you are. Did you bother to read Darwin, even
he admits he cannot explain how the eye developed. But I see you
have the answer.
Linked Article page 6:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=6
"This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks
on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian
William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field,
the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that
natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the
complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of
direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as
an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection,
acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution
of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing
the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved.
The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect
arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection
could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the
eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this
criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might
confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and
thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has
vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and
light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even
tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative
genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms,
eyes have evolved independently.)"
As usual we see those who condemn oithers who don't partake of
their Kool Aid condemn other views as pseudo science. Fossil
evidence-zero.
So you deny the existence of fossils? Or do you merely deny that
the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Either way you're
wrong. Linked article page 2:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=2
"The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves
inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet
in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and
archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still
be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence
and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future
discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the
earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old)
and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000
years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with
features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is
indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does
not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic
period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely
makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and
researchers test them constantly."
Why have they been no new species?
Linked article page 5
"Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take
centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a
formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes
disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used
definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species
as a distinct community of reproductively isolated
populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed
outside their community. In practice, this standard can be
difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or
to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists
therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as
clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of
apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of
these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types
of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat
preferences and other traits--and found that they had created
populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For
example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George
W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that
if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for
certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35
generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those
from a very different environment."
Dawkins is a low life who is a base fraud. The "science" you
promote smacks of eugenics and other false sciences. But then
Darwinism was the basis of Sanger a noted racist. It also
understandable to see why racists of all striped embraced
Darwinism, good folks like Stalin and Hitler who worshipped your
kind of "science." I suggest you peddle your theories elsewhere. If
unproven they remain theories, just like those people who believe
in the mothership.
I also found your "quality of life" phrase worth looking at. The
National Socialist used it as an excuse for eliminating those with
lives not worth living. But of course we realize that parents
should be excluded from these decisions in favor of people
like....you?
Whoa! Godwin much?
It is a fact that modern complex organisms evolved from primordial
simple one-celled organisms over a period of billions of years,
driven largely by random mutation and natural selection. But
nothing about that fact provides any intellectual justification for
the Nazi's barbarism or pseudoscientific theories about "Race" or
"Aryan blood". And clearly nothing about my comments can be
reasonably be interpreted to mean that I support "eliminating those
with lives not worth living".
Eugenics, including coercive eugenics which violates individual
rights, was proposed and practiced long before the fact of
evolution was discovered or even suspected. Since ancient times,
people had noticed that certain traits were inherited from one's
parents and some people wanted society to guaranty that certain
traits would be dominant by controlling individual reproduction
decisions or by killing those without such traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Pre-Galtonian_eugenic_philosophies
Clearly, knowledge of evolution is neither necessary nor sufficient
to get someone to support coercive eugenics. (Incidently, I would
observe a moral distinction between coercive eugenics and what
might be called voluntary eugenics, in which a talented person who
wants to reproduce seeks out another person who is also talented to
increase the probability that the offspring will have a genetic
advantage.)
One final point regarding Stalin. Contrary to your apparent belief,
he was not advocate of pseudoscientific eugenics nor even the
real science of genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
"In the mid-1930s, the agronomist Trofim Lysenko started a campaign
against genetics and was supported by Stalin. Between 1934 and
1940, many geneticists were executed (including Agol, Levit,
Nadson) or sent to labor camps (including the best-known Soviet
geneticist, Nikolai Vavilov, who died in prison in 1943). Genetics
was called "the whore of capitalism" (п?р?о?д?а?ж?н?а?я? д?е?в?к?а?
к?а?п?и?т?а?л?и?з?м?а?) and stigmatized as a "fascist science",
hinting at its closeness to eugenics, popular in Nazi Germany.
However, some geneticists survived and continued to work on
genetics, dangerous as this was.
In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois
pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from work (some were
also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. The
taboo on genetics continued even after Stalin's death. Only in the
mid-1960s was it completely waived."
Salvius|2.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Why all the hate for the name "Moxie"? People name their kids
"Faith" and "Charity" all the time, apparently naming them after
personality traits they hope the kids will have. "Faith" certainly
wouldn't make much sense for a libertarian atheist (and even
"Charity" is a little iffy), but "Moxie" seems perfectly
appropriate to me. With regard to her middle name, "Crimefighter",
they've said explicitly it's because nobody (apart from maybe
pretentious poets) uses their middle name anyway, so it doesn't
really matter what it is. And someday, when she gets pulled over
for speeding, she can say, "But officer, I'm on your side. Why, my
middle name is 'Crimefighter'!"
As for "Zolten", it's Penn's wife's maiden name, and it's a
perfectly ordinary Hungarian name (e.g., composer Zoltan Kodaly).
No big deal.
Did you bother to read Darwin, even he admits he cannot explain
how the eye developed.
A good point, assuming that all progress of knowledge in the field
of evolution stopped cold the day Darwin died...
(Just in case you're oblivious to sarcasm: Just because
Darwin couldn't explain it, does not mean no one
today can explain it.)
Orange Line Destroyer|2.10.09 @ 2:24AM|#
Now how could I possible beat an argument that quotes the wisdom
of Wiki. How could one possible beat a response that says it takes
too long to observe changes but trust us they happen even if you
can't show any evidence.
How can one refrute someone who says saving people is dependent on
if that life is worth living. Ah who could refrute such humanity or
its scientific basis.
I did love your explaination of the eye. Just imagine every
specifies having to independently develop eyes, digestive tracks,
brains, and leaving no evidence nor having specifies that through
mutation developed in amazing different ways rather than having so
many commonalities. But lets ignore that Darwin couldn't explain
it, nor the many other flaws in his theories.
We can believe in poeple like Dawkins who provides so mcu
demonstratable evidence. A theory sir remains just that unless it
can be demonstrated independently. To close off avenues of inquiry
just demonstrate the same mindset of Star Chambers or the
Inquisition.
The Communists didn't believe in eugenics? To prove this you cite
certain biologists among the 30 odd million people Stalin killed.
What do you suppose the chances of this were. Do you suppose the
seven aviation bureau directors who were executed in the 30s were
killed because they didn't believe in flight? Why do you suppose
that the Soviets praised eugenics and funded Sanger? Or haven't you
bothered to read their propoganda of the period of the 20s and
30s?
I ask for proof and I get Gollum discussing My Little Pony.
I believe you let your mask fall when you decided that you would be
the authority on what life was worth living. Only a patient and his
next of kin should decide this, not some bureaucrat, or someone
waiting to collect insurance.
Dawkins remains a symbol of junk science. Long on theory short on
fact, and really, really imaginative but this is not science. Yet
we have the global warming people, the cellphone people, the alar
tyopes who all have theirsnakeoil to peddle.
And jsut as there were those who said science proved the sun
revolved arond the earth or that the world was flat we see the same
leemings today. If Darwin's theory can be proven you wouldn't e
writing the tripe you have.
You'd say here is the fossil evidnec in the British Museum of
Antiquities, or at the Smithsonian. I await some proof. But please
don't refer me to another truther site.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.10.09 @ 2:35AM|#
Salvius:
A parent that inflicts not an unusual name but a strange one on a
child does no service to that child. He demonstrates his affection
and respect for the child. Do you think your parent wouyld be
honoring you if he named you BurgerKing Whopper Horndog Zoltan? Or
that he had issues?
Now after a hundred years one would assume the explanation of how
the eye evolved would have been found yet no one has. We have not
found wevidence to support evolution's theories and again I would
ask why aren't the transition stages available? We are not talking
the change of a breed of dogs but let us say a dog into a tuna if
such a thing were posited? Why is there no evidence if we have
fossil records going back hundreds of millions of years.
Just as we have no firm idea of why the dinosaurs were wiped out,
you have your choice among several possible theories, one doesn't
proclaim this is the one and only explanation in the absence of
evidence.
To do so makes one no better than Elmer Gantry. And the same
scientists who brayed the earth was the center of the universe or
that the world was flat or that 3o years ago we were told we'd be
in an ice age today and there would be no oil, a claim repeated
every decade by the US government for some future date usually 50
years in the future only serves to highlight the point that those
who proclaim the true defenders of the faith are just that.
Defenders of the faith but not science. Science demands open minds
and open inquiry not the closing of minds. It demands proof not
rhetoric.
Do you think such a person would be entirely stable or rather self
centered and needing to be the center of attention for all the
wrong reaons.
I actually meant a family named Rabbit who named their children
Peter, Jack, Brare, Cottontail. I imagine these kids learned to
fight early. They must have loved these names.
Salvius|2.10.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Now after a hundred years one would assume the explanation
of how the eye evolved would have been found yet no one
has.
You're
not
looking
hard
enough.
And my argument about Penn was not that it's OK for him to give his
kids strange names, it's that the (primary) names he gave his kids
aren't all that strange.
|2.10.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Orange Line Destroyer
You did not even try to refute any of the substantial points cited
in the scientific article I linked to. For example there was a
paragraph cited in my last comment about what the fossil record
shows and doesn't show and who this confirms the predictions made
by evolution (page 2 of original article). Also there is a
paragraph cited that starts "Nevertheless, the scientific
literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in
plants, insects and worms" (page 5 in original article).
This, at the end of your statement, was interesting:
You'd say here is the fossil evidnec in the British Museum of
Antiquities, or at the Smithsonian. I await some proof. But please
don't refer me to another truther site.
If you think thousands of scientists are involved in a conspiracy
(saying they found fossils when they didn't, or making false claims
about what they found when they studied them, or making false
claims about what hey found upon doing radioactive dating of
surrounding fossil layers, or whatever) then I recommend 2 things
to you. First look up Occam's Razor. Second, if you still suspect
such a conspiracy, contact some paleontologists and tell them you
want to accompany them the next time they gather fossil evidence,
and while they do lab studies of it. Referring you to websites is
the only thing I can do in a discussion over the
internet (and you can have your own standards for what you
consider a "truther site"). But if you want to accompany the
scientists yourself, I'll help get you started by posting the
contact information for the United States Geological Survey:
USGS Information Services
Box 25286, Building 810
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
303-202-4700; Fax 303-202-4693
Here are some more sites (and excerpts) which you may or may not
find credible:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
"If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of
rock, we will come to a level where no fossils of humans are
present. If we continue backwards in time, we will successively
come to levels where no fossils of flowering plants are present, no
birds, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed vertebrates, no land
plants, no fishes, no shells, and no animals. The three concepts
are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil
Succession: The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils change
through time. When we find the same kinds of fossils in rocks from
different places, we know that the rocks are the same age"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
The age of the Earth and its inhabitants has been determined
through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and
numerical (or radiometric) dating.
• Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting
their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in
the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited
first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as
superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because
the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because
they have been overturned.
If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date
fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession,
crosscutting relationships, and inclusions.
By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can
learn which came first and which came next, but we need further
evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of
fossils.
• Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements,
such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks
must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash
layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the
diagram, you can determine "older than X, but younger than Y" dates
for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can
be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content.
Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of
numerical dating of rocks from around the world.
We can believe in poeple like Dawkins who provides so mcu
demonstratable evidence. A theory sir remains just that unless it
can be demonstrated independently. To close off avenues of inquiry
just demonstrate the same mindset of Star Chambers or the
Inquisition.
Although I was recently appointed to the Star Chamber by Urkobold,
I decline to use my authority to close off inquiry on evolution or
any other subject. If you can find evidence against evolution (for
example fossils of an organism in layer of rack that is clearly
aged before that organism could have evolved) feel free to publish
or cite it.
|2.10.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Missing cite from my last post (its actually a linked to the
berkley page, but I better cite the exact page as some may not have
the ability to ind it on their own):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_10
|2.10.09 @ 5:20PM|#
I believe you let your mask fall when you decided that you
would be the authority on what life was worth living. Only a
patient and his next of kin should decide this, not some
bureaucrat, or someone waiting to collect insurance.
Please cite the statement in which I decided that. The only thing I
can think of is that you grossly misinterpreted this:
BG February 9, 2009
"Do you distinguish between a parent who withholds medical
treatment for religious reasons (the TB antibiotic example) and one
who disagrees with their local doctors (or 'the medical
establishment' in general) about a particular course of
treatment.
If there is significant evidence that an alternative treatment
works, or significant reason to doubt that the mainstream treatment
will work, I'd be more likely to support parental discretion. There
are also quality of life issues associated with some
treatments and that may need to be factored in." (emphasis
added now)
This was in the context of how much discretion parents should have
to refuse to allow doctors to give certain medical treatments to
minors.
So for example, say there are two possible courses of treatment: A
and B, and neither is certain to work but most doctors think A is
slightly more likely to work; it might be a tough call whether
doctors should be bound by a decision by parents to give their kid
B. (By contrast, it is an easy call to say that doctors should be
allowed to give a minor with TB antibiotics, even if the parents
insist on only "spiritual healing").
The "quality of life" thing is relevant because some treatments
(such as chemotherapy, which was cited by jjc) have significant
adverse side effects. This potentially has bearing on whether, and
when, a parent's rejection of chemotherapy for a kid with cancer
should be binding on doctors.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245