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)
In which I quit my job and rally against the germ theory of disease
Evolutionary biologists sometimes think we microbiology people have it easy. "No one doubts the germ theory!," they claim.
Au contraire, mes amis:
28 Comments
normdoering · 24 July 2006
Dr. Morgan Greenwood · 25 July 2006
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
normdoering · 25 July 2006
normdoering · 25 July 2006
Dr. Morgan Greenwood,
What do you think of this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/creationists_muscling_in_on_my_territory_1.php
Sounder · 25 July 2006
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.
Sounder · 25 July 2006
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?
Steviepinhead · 25 July 2006
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.
Arden Chatfield · 25 July 2006
This link seems relevant:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Arden Chatfield · 25 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2006
Waterloo !!! Waterloo!!!!! Waterloo!!!!
(snicker) (giggle)
Chris Lawson · 26 July 2006
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.
wamba · 26 July 2006
Glen Davidson · 26 July 2006
[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
Darth Robo · 26 July 2006
Well I'm not. And now I have that damn song stuck in my head! Thanks.
:(
fnxtr · 26 July 2006
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.
steve s · 26 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 July 2006
Karen · 27 July 2006
Glen Davidson · 27 July 2006
Karen · 27 July 2006
Henry J · 27 July 2006
"UD" = "Uncommon Descent", the name of that other blog.
Glen Davidson · 27 July 2006
Tara · 27 July 2006
OK--please cut out the personal attacks from all sides.
steve s · 27 July 2006
I think Glen's website constitutes a personal attack on my retinas.
Your Competition · 20 September 2006
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.
Carlos Fried · 28 December 2006
PS3's Portrait Slideshow Face Detection..
Tyrese Hoover · 31 December 2006
Joint Ethiopian And Somalia Govt. Forces Advance Towards Mogadishu..
Nathanial Hanley · 31 December 2006
PS3's Portrait Slideshow Face Detection..