…and this is a 
Another off-the-wall argument against evolution
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 11, 2008 9:43 AM, by PZ Myers
One of the best things about following the antics of creationists is that it gives you a better appreciation of the creative power of the human mind…which isn't anywhere near as powerful as reality. Here's another example of creationist rationalization that doesn't hold up well under even casual inspection.
With the notable exception of the American Bison most mammals have two separate pleural or lung cavities. As we all know, one side of our chest can be penetrated collapsing that lung, but the other side remains intact and the remaining lung can support life. The bison has what is called an incomplete mediastinum, that is there is but one pleural cavity containing both lungs. Thus the problem for the Native bow hunter with or without a horse is solved. An arrow must only penetrate the chest at any point and both lungs collapse. The fatally wounded animal would only continue a few yards providing unlimited food, clothing and tools. Before the availability of horses bison could be shot by stealth from a blind or other hiding place. One problem is solved yet another serious comes to mind...a problem seldom mentioned, yet demanding an answer.
The problem is for the evolutionist. Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum? From an evolutionary sense this makes absolutely no sense. Indeed conventional wisdom would argue for its elimination from the gene pool. Yet it did remain and fed a continent of Native American for centuries. It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain an evolutionist. I am glad I know the Creator of Bison and Native Americans. You can know Him too.
So, wait…God hates bison? Doesn't this create a logical problem for the creationist, in that God has made the primary large game animal targeted by the Native Americans exceptionally fragile?
And let's question that assumption: bison aren't particularly weak, and there's no reason to assume that selection would work to promote the evolution of dual compartments in the chest cavity — that's almost certainly an embryological accident in the first place. How many wild animals are running around with only one lung? Not many. If you're attacked in such a way that your chest cavity is perforated, the only difference between a separated and unseparated mediastinum is whether your death will be slow or quick.
And of course, I thought the Hebrews were the chosen people. How come God didn't give the Middle East a population of big game animals they could knock over with a good sharp poke?
Canadian Cynic has a nice sharp rebuttal: "…if God had really cared about native Americans, he might have given them immunity to smallpox."
Comments
Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
This assumes, of course, that if the bison had such a "complete" chest cavity it would no longer be a viable food source. So I would argue that either type of chest cavity was irrelevant; the Native Americans would still have been able to kill them. And since when is a single bison an unlimited food supply? WTF?
Posted by: Steve F | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
Having butchered numerous deer, done open heart surgery on rats and dogs, I don't recall any of them having a completely septated mediastinums. I was alway under the impression that it was primates that were the exception.
Posted by: barry | July 11, 2008 9:53 AM
Inanity knows no bounds. Bison have one lung, therefore my god made them. If the bison had 48574 lungs, do you think the conclusion would be any different?
Posted by: Heleen | July 11, 2008 9:54 AM
Unfortunately, this somewhat nightmarish site has no comment section.
Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2008 9:56 AM
Professor, the very fact that you're not willing to obtain your own consecrated Host proves to me that something tells you it is something more than a "frackin' cracker." May God give you the grace to see the blasphemy you are committing. In any event, I pray He forgives you and has mercy on your eternal soul. God bless you.
Posted by: TNskeptic | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM
I don't know the exact numbers as far as the ratio of Bison to hunter populations. I do know that the bison herds numbered in the millions of individuals and I'm sure the number of hunters was conciderably less. So the chance of a single individual bison being killed by a hunter was not too great. I'm sure someone in this forum can come up with some precise figures on this.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM
May God give you the grace to see the blasphemy you are committing. In any event, I pray He forgives you and has mercy on your eternal soul. God bless you.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 9:58 AM
Can someone please tell me what good things atheism has brought into the world?
I'll spot you a quarter point for PZ's beard.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM
People Who Say "Evolution isn't a Fact" Should Be Naturally Deselected.
Seriously, how do people this stupid manage to breathe? I want answers from reputable medical journals, 'cause DAMN!
Posted by: david costa | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM
Can he really be a Doctor? -Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Posted by: Lago | July 11, 2008 10:00 AM
This is basic evolution 101.
Is a cat falls, how often do they get seriously hurt? Rarely, if at all, but of course it does happen. If it does, the cat cannot survive and often dies. This is selection against wimpy cats...
How about a prey animal? If a gazelle or bird gets taken down it often breaks its legs, or even its neck in the case of many birds. Why isn't there selection against this? Because the cat already caught the mutha fucka. Once that has happened, the animals does not even get a chance to be selected for its ability to survive falling or getting bit. The selection is for the animal not to get caught in the freakin' first place. Why don't they evolve to a point where they never get caught? because selection os working on the cats ability to catch the damn things at the same damn time...
Posted by: david costa | July 11, 2008 10:01 AM
Heleen, No comment area-however his email is linked on his home page.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 10:01 AM
If God hadn't made bison meat so tasty, Native Americans wouldn't have hunted them. God must really hate bison.
Posted by: Nat | July 11, 2008 10:04 AM
God created fragile bisons so that native americans could kill them all easily so that good christians could kill native americans more easily. obvious, no ?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 11, 2008 10:04 AM
Simple: the bison is infinite. And how could an infinite beast occupy a finite space? That's impossible, which goes to show that it could only have been created by an almighty god that is not bound by the laws of geometry. Oh, and who got himself incarnated in his own son and died for our sins. That's totally necessary too.
Posted by: JJR | July 11, 2008 10:04 AM
BTW, there's a t-shirt over at EvolveFish that says "Ask Native Peoples about 'Christian Love'..."
I also like the one about "Homeland Security: Fighting Terrorism Since 1492"
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 10:05 AM
So god hates Europeans and Asians. The equivalent and related animals in the Old World are the horses and wild cattle, the Aurochs. Both were hunted for food by early man using the same technology as Amerinds.
He must also hate middle easterners and Africans because he didn't give them any bison either.
And he must really hate the Jews because he gave all the oil to the Arabs.
There is something about simple minded fuzzy reasoning that just guarantees it is both stupid and wrong.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | July 11, 2008 10:08 AM
According to the creationist, the continued killing of the bison over many years by Native American arrows was supposed to help in the selection of two separate pleural cavities. Since this did not happen, it disprove the theory of evolution. That makes sense to a creationist.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 10:08 AM
lol, i like those sectarian religionists with their pompous questions that totally sidestep whether or not their ideas conform to reality. I guess these people would worship a turd as long as it smelled nice.
Posted by: matt | July 11, 2008 10:10 AM
every day, I have less and less faith in humanity. In retrospect, it was a bad idea for me to watch Idiocracy. Creationists remind me of the product Brawndo from that movie. "but plants need water!"
"no, they need Brawndo."
"but why?"
"it's got what plants crave."
"but the plants are dying."
"...but Brawndo's got electrolytes. Brawndo. It's what plants crave..."
Posted by: Lynnai | July 11, 2008 10:12 AM
There is a place in the prarries that prove that evolution doesn't work quickly either. Buffalo Jump (I think the full name is Big White Bones Buffalo Jump), poor things are about as aerodynamic as bricks and never once did they evolve wings on the way down.
I wonder if they're any good on crackers.
Posted by: Lorax | July 11, 2008 10:12 AM
"...if God had really cared about native Americans, he might have given them immunity to smallpox."
Not true, because while God does care about Native Americans, he cares about White European settlers more. If Native Americans were immune to smallpox, our ancestors would have had a more difficult time fulfilling Manifest Destiny and feeling like their God favored them in some way.
Also, God did give the Hebrews an unlimited easy to obtain food supply, manna from heaven. Of course they then went and prayed to a golden calf and fucked that all up. See God is more knowledgeable than man, all hail Vishnu
Posted by: Adam | July 11, 2008 10:12 AM
I liked their article on the natural pregnancy test. Before EPT and the rabbit test, a woman could walk outside, look at the stars and just know that she was pregnant. Wow! And who says women don't have magical powers?
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 10:13 AM
"i like those sectarian religionists with their pompous questions that totally sidestep whether or not their ideas conform to reality."
Which ideas don't conform to reality? can you demonstrate that?
Posted by: Kerlyssa | July 11, 2008 10:14 AM
Just to keep up to date, is the bison the new atheist's nightmare?
I'm ok with this. It's easier to conjure up fear of a giant hoofed animal than a banana.
Posted by: DrB | July 11, 2008 10:16 AM
Never mind that hunting loose herds with projectiles was only the last (and one of the shortest-lived) in a long line of bison-hunting methods.
Oh, and that only Plains Indians ever got to hunt bison. Lots more Indians ate acorns, to the point of acorns being a staple food, than ever ate bison. I wonder what the creationist excuse is for all of the tannins in acorns? Perhaps to keep the Indians from gorging oak-trees into extinction?
Posted by: Stephen | July 11, 2008 10:18 AM
#21 - I think you may mean Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo Jump, in Alberta, Canada
Posted by: Karl Withakay | July 11, 2008 10:18 AM
When I was in high school and I had to write a research paper, I would do my research, collect and organize all the facts and information that could be used to support my stated position, and ignore anything that contradicted or didn't support my position. As long as my position was supported by the teacher, or my paper was on a topic the teacher wasn't particularly familiar with, it would get good grade every time.
It's pretty easy to support a bull$ position when you use high research paper quality argument.
Posted by: E.V. | July 11, 2008 10:18 AM
'Can someone please tell me what good things atheism has brought into the world?"
Well, curious you should ask, Curious. Advances in every branch of science; exposure of charlatans, religious bigots and zealots; the courage to dispel the tyranny of mysticism and superstition; and the advancement of reason and rationality. Somehow, though, I'm sure this is lost on you and you're not truly curious at all.
Posted by: Falconer | July 11, 2008 10:19 AM
It's obvious to me that God favors the Great Plains natives over the Eastern Seaboard natives, because He didn't put any bison east of the Mississippi.
Seriously. God Hates Cherokees. And Iroquois. And any other Indian tribes I have forgotten, but are included herein and incorporated herewith by this reference.
Posted by: Hoffa | July 11, 2008 10:20 AM
This must also mean an Intelligent Designer created bingo and casino gaming.
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 10:20 AM
The primary method native Americans used, before the white man reintroduced the horse, was to stampede the bison off a cliff. Nor was the hunting conducted in little aboriginal groups, but instead huge endeavors lasting up to eight-months and could involve groups as large as 3,000 Indians who were part of a sophisticated trade network.
Not that he'd learn that in a History Class.
Our history doesn't tell us the truth because as long as Indians are cast as primitive, dark-age losers we can continue to gloss over the truth of our genocide and the smug superiority that led to it. Including, of course, the role of the Catholic church in dehumanizing Indians and officially okaying slavery and genocide. After all, they're the ones who pre-absolved Columbus of his sins and gave him carte blanche to do as he would to the native americans.
Ironically, this (along with other hypocritical issues) helped spur the Protestant Reformation and gave birth, in part, to the Anabaptist movement which held that slavery, in any form, was abhorrent and non-Christian (and to their persecution at the hands of other Christians - catholic and protestant - who did not take that view). Sort of a 15th Century "blowback" as it were.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 10:20 AM
*Sigh* Yet more of the "every single thing must be a distinct genetic advantage for evolution to be true" fallacy.
Posted by: Karl Withakay | July 11, 2008 10:24 AM
>>>'Can someone please tell me what good things atheism has brought into the world?"
Sure, the crusades, the inquisition, suppression of science and reason ......no wait, that was religion.
Posted by: Larry | July 11, 2008 10:26 AM
#31: LOL!
I wonder if the IDer worked out a cut of the daily take?
Posted by: El Cid | July 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Um, also, you know, like, human technology is really, really, really recent, and hasn't been around for the millions of years often involved in large evolutionary changes.
Posted by: The Other Dan from Wisconsin | July 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Bison on toast, anyone?
Posted by: DaveH | July 11, 2008 10:30 AM
I wonder if the incomplete mediastinum thing is even true? Or unique?
I don't know how well known the great whale nipple "proof" of ID is (see http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.1774577.0.whales_as_evidence_of_intelligent_design.php )but this feels kinda similar.
Posted by: Matti | July 11, 2008 10:31 AM
@DRB I wonder what the creationist excuse is for all of the tannins in acorns?
Well obviously it shows the Native Americans did not have the sophistication to create a nice red wine. Which just shows why the Xians were able to easily defeat a non-red wine drinking culture.
Posted by: Escuerd | July 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Asking what good atheism has brought into the world is roughly analogous to asking what good failure to believe in any silly concept has brought to the world.
Moreover, it has no bearing on what's actually true.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Before humans came to North America, the continent was home to mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, llamas, giant beaver, and horses. Why didn't The Big Guy In The Sky let these megafaunal food sources survive?
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Yeah! And if God didn't design bison specifically for human consumption, why are they made of meat?
Posted by: bric | July 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 10:41 AM
"Well, curious you should ask, Curious. Advances in every branch of science; exposure of charlatans, religious bigots and zealots; the courage to dispel the tyranny of mysticism and superstition; and the advancement of reason and rationality. Somehow, though, I'm sure this is lost on you and you're not truly curious at all."
Are all of those things done in the name of atheism, I don't think so.
I'm also pretty sure most of that hasn't happened on a large scale, and when it has, it's resulted in millions of deaths.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | July 11, 2008 10:41 AM
a similar vein Casey Luskin over at the DI has failed to comprehend the Nature paper about flatfish. Apparently having an asymmetric head that isn't as asymmetric as modern flatfishes isn't enough to be a transitional form.
Posted by: Aaron | July 11, 2008 10:47 AM
Considering that bison are extinct or near-extinct -- I would say that natural selection held up its end of the bargain pretty soundly.
The allele that made it easier for them to die off is being eliminated by the selective pressure of native american archers.
Where's the problem with this?
Posted by: Rob | July 11, 2008 10:48 AM
"Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum?"
What's the selective advantage of a gene that kills people that go on airplanes in a very, very painful manner, and is almost always fatal in the homozygous state?
Oh yeah, it confers some immunity to malaria. Don't assume the phenotype you're observing is what is selected for/against.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 10:49 AM
Following this deranged logic, endangered species are just asking for it. Look at the volcano rabbit. 'Ksake.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Ah, yes. When it's a benefit, it's "not in the name of atheism". When it's harmful, it is.
Make up your mind.
["bigger pile of bodies" argument starts in 3 .. 2 .. 1]
Posted by: maureen | July 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Matti @ 39
Then why, when the Vikings settled on the mainland of North America, did they call it Vinland?
Posted by: El'd Herring (now de-Woo-ed) | July 11, 2008 10:53 AM
Perhaps somebody should turn Curious's comment (#8) round and throw it back at him: namely, what good things religion has brought into the world?
And Bach's music doesn't count. Bach was more or less an atheist (as much as anyone could be in the C18th), and wrote music to commission. So did Mozart.
So, apart from various works of art, how about it? In over 2000 years what good has religion done civilisation, except to make it generally less civilised?
Posted by: wintermute | July 11, 2008 10:53 AM
The US Constitution?Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 10:54 AM
"Ah, yes. When it's a benefit, it's "not in the name of atheism". When it's harmful, it is."
Deal. Straight up: what good things have been brought into the world in the name of atheism?
Posted by: Ouchimoo | July 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Hmmm, that's funny. I never heard of a one lunged bison before, so I did a quick google search. Hmm What's this? The information I found is very contradictory to said xtain's claims. I read that in the days of rifles and sport hunting (that's like . . .today) that bison are very DIFFICULT to take down. With people gravitating to high powered rifles and full metal jackets. Oh NM He saiz GOD DID IT! He must be right! Long lived the one lunged bison cuz gawd made it special!
Posted by: charfles | July 11, 2008 10:58 AM
Atheism is not a religion. We don't do things "in the name of" atheism. That's stupid. That's was religious people do. We do things for their own, individual, reasons. Not some dogma.
Now, if you want things done by ATHEISTS, you need only look at the past 150 years of science to find suitable examples.
Posted by: kryth | July 11, 2008 11:00 AM
God hates bison.
God hates fig trees.
God hates the platypus.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:01 AM
The question is not, in any way, meaningful.
What good things have been brought into the world in the name of not collecting stamps?
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 11:01 AM
And you can't do things "in the name of atheism", Curious, you nincompoop. It's not another religion, it's the lack of any religion. That's clearly a very difficult concept for idiots to grasp, so read it again slowly.
You can, however, do things in the pursuit of truth and human happiness without any religious conviction, and that understanding is largely what brought us science and technology and medicine and democracy. Without "atheism" in that sense, I'd currently be washing nappies in a river and wondering if I'd lose my tenth child to polio.
Posted by: Monsignor Henry Clay | July 11, 2008 11:04 AM
@ #44
Curious, there aren't a lot of things done "in the name of atheism". Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. And Dinesh is wrong. Those things weren't done "in the name of atheism". They were done in the name of tyrannical megalomaniacs and in the name of the "State". Substituting the "State" for a religion isn't atheism.
Posted by: E.V. | July 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Oh look everyone! Curious thinks himself to be intellectual and is posing a serious question to all the people who find belief in gods to be of human construct and rather silly.
Curious, just read through the archives here and learn something. Your ignorance (and arrogance) obviously knows no bounds.
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 11:06 AM
"Now, if you want things done by ATHEISTS, you need only look at the past 150 years of science to find suitable examples."
You do know that most of the scientists who made lasting contributions to the world had religion of some type.
Advancements in evolutionary biology have not resulted in any advancements for the world.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:07 AM
Just to expand on this: if the answer to your question is "nothing", what exactly do you think that means?
Posted by: kermit | July 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Well, Curious. Actually, atheism per se didn't bring any benefits, except in allowing some folks to ignore their culture's superstitions when it would interfere with progress. How many benefits would you expect to come from not believing in leprechauns?
In a later post you indirectly referred, presumably, to Pol Pot and Stalin. Did they kill folks who weren't atheist, or did they kill folks who were a threat to their political power and didn't toe the party line? Did a belief in God have anything to do with the Crusades, or the Twin Towers Bombing?
Offhand I can't think of any advance in human society which wasn't secular. The inventor may have been a theist, but he or she had to do it without recourse to religion. Some advances thru the centuries include the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, vaccinations, landing on the moon, sterile surgical techniques, the internet, and a few million others. Many of these non-religious advances were by atheists, some by Christians, some Muslims, Hindus, many pagans.
There's religious music and other art, but great musicians have produced music about anything that's important to them. Bach wrote great religious music, true, but he also wrote the Coffee Cantata.
Can't think of any advances offhand which were religious.
Kermit
Posted by: NonyNony | July 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Okay PZ (or anyone else) I have a question here because I don't think my reading comprehension skills are so good today:
Are you saying that the "dual lung" physiology that we think of for most animals is an "embryological accident"? Does that mean that you're saying that it doesn't really provide a benefit that would be selected on for the animal in question? If so, why is it so widespread across species? (I ask this in all sincerity in an attempt to expand my layperson's understanding of biology, and not as someone trying to throw out a strawman, so I understand that this might be a stupid question).
On a completely different note - the rationale from the creationist biologist above seems really odd to me given than it's been my understanding that Natives hunted bison by herding them off of cliffs to their demise, and not by going after them "one on one" with a bow and arrow.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 11:10 AM
What good have bald people brought to the world ? Who has ever cured disease in the name of baldness ? And look at Mussolini. He was bald, and he was a bad man. Franco did not have much hair either, and he was not very nice.
I am fed up with all these fundamentlist bald people!
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 11:10 AM
Take that back!Except in modern medicine... and in improving our knowledge base.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 11:15 AM
And precise dating of fossil strata for the mining industry. And the use of genetic algorithsm to find solutions for problems in computing. And in vitro evolutionary processes to design new drugs and antibiotics.But yeah, what have the evolutionary biologists ever done for us?
Posted by: charfles | July 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Ah so genetics, the heredity portion of the evolution "equation", has not brought about any advancements?
Oh really? I guess that those polls showing that >90% of the members of the NAS do not believe in a personal god are part of an atheist conspiracy? Or maybe you think that the members of the NAS haven't contributed anything meaningful to science?
Posted by: Craig | July 11, 2008 11:16 AM
I don't know how you put up with your comment threads, PZ... every time I stop to read one, I have to stifle the urge to yell.
I would like to point out that, when commenters argue, they're not really arguing to convince each other. There's no way Curious would change its mind even if we present it with a perfect argument.
We're really arguing for fence-sitters, and to keep ourselves active and in the game. I think that's important to remember.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:16 AM
Again with the double standard: Scientist with no religion doesn't count as "in the name of atheism". Scientist with religion counts as a religious advance. You're not even pretending to be reasonable.
Wow. Just, wow.
Posted by: Brandon P. | July 11, 2008 11:17 AM
With the notable exception of the American Bison most mammals have two separate pleural or lung cavities. As we all know, one side of our chest can be penetrated collapsing that lung, but the other side remains intact and the remaining lung can support life. The bison has what is called an incomplete mediastinum, that is there is but one pleural cavity containing both lungs. Thus the problem for the Native bow hunter with or without a horse is solved. An arrow must only penetrate the chest at any point and both lungs collapse. The fatally wounded animal would only continue a few yards providing unlimited food, clothing and tools. Before the availability of horses bison could be shot by stealth from a blind or other hiding place. One problem is solved yet another serious comes to mind...a problem seldom mentioned, yet demanding an answer.
The problem is for the evolutionist. Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum? From an evolutionary sense this makes absolutely no sense. Indeed conventional wisdom would argue for its elimination from the gene pool. Yet it did remain and fed a continent of Native American for centuries. It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain an evolutionist. I am glad I know the Creator of Bison and Native Americans. You can know Him too.
Has this guy considered the possibility that for most of the millions of years that bovids evolved, they didn't have to worry about primates making projectiles to kill them?
Besides, if Yahweh/Allah/Jesus truly was looking out for the Native Americans, She would have made sure they worshipped HER, not Quetzalcoatl, Maka-akan, and other homegrown Native American deities. Or is there some evidence that pre-Columbian Native Americans practiced an Abrahamic religion that the archaeological community has not brought to public notice yet?
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 11:18 AM
I like to think I know something about the history of science. I cannot think of a single scientific advance made in the name of religion. Sure, I can think of all sorts of advances made by religious believers, but they weren't working for the greater glory of Judaism or Islam or Rastrafarianism.
Posted by: jj | July 11, 2008 11:18 AM
Another creationist not understanding the fundamental concepts of Evolution.
Wait, did we pretty much take the American Bison out. Isn't that selection right there? It has a lung that makes it easier to hunt. We hunted, now it's gone. Sounds like selection to me...
Posted by: Lynnai | July 11, 2008 11:19 AM
Yes I'm sure I do mean that. For years someone near me called it the wrong one and it stil sticks in my mind as being marginly more reasonable for a place name. I think I'll go reread the map of Newfoundland to remind me that no matter how lovely and wonderfull I think Canada is, reasonable place names have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Road trip to Dildo anyone? *sigh*
Posted by: kermit | July 11, 2008 11:20 AM
Curious @61 "Advancements in evolutionary biology have not resulted in any advancements for the world."
Well, except for managing wildlife refuges. And understanding changes brought about by climate change. And dealing with predictions of the expression of genetic diseases and their management. Tracing human migrations throughout prehistory. Developing vaccines for next year's influenza. Developing more robust and nutritious crops. Controlling pests and plagues. And cancer - ask an oncologist if his/her practice would be imaginable without evolutionary science to inform it. I wouldn't expect you to understand, but knowledge for its own sake is considered desirable by many of your fellow humans. Indirectly, anything done in biology if founded on the understanding of evolution and its processes. To mention just a few off the top of my head.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:21 AM
Try going to Pennsylvania some time.
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 11:22 AM
"How many benefits would you expect to come from not believing in leprechauns?"
No one does things because they believe in leprechauns. Perhaps someone will chase a rainbow, but so. Making anologies to other objects that someone does or doesn't like is irrelevant.
"In a later post you indirectly referred, presumably, to Pol Pot and Stalin. Did they kill folks who weren't atheist, or did they kill folks who were a threat to their political power and didn't toe the party line? Did a belief in God have anything to do with the Crusades, or the Twin Towers Bombing?"
If you'd like to argue the body count, you will lose. Pol Pot and Stalin killed both types of people and for both reasons.
"Offhand I can't think of any advance in human society which wasn't secular."
Modern music notation is owed exclusively to Medieval monks.
"Some advances thru the centuries include the Magna Carta, the US Constitution"
I'm pretty sure both of those had something to do with the inherent dignity of man, which didn't come from not believing in anything.
"vaccinations"
Pastuer pretty much invented vaccination, he was a very devout Catholic. http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/rosarymarkings12.html
"Many of these non-religious advances were by atheists, some by Christians, some Muslims, Hindus, many pagans."
Care to name a few?
"There's religious music and other art, but great musicians have produced music about anything that's important to them."
No one's music had a lasting impact on culture because it was important to them.
"Except in modern medicine... and in improving our knowledge base."
What advancement in modern medicine is do to evolutionary biology?
So we know something that lacks application or potential for it, big deal.
Posted by: windy | July 11, 2008 11:23 AM
For one thing, lasting contributions to computer science (notice that machine you use to spew your hateful nonsense here?) were made by an atheist scientist.
Posted by: E.V. | July 11, 2008 11:24 AM
"No seriously, straight up...."
(facepalm)
Posted by: MH | July 11, 2008 11:24 AM
An incomplete mediastinum? If Zeus (that's who we're talking about, right?) had wanted to engineer bison to be food for humans why did he give them legs? He could have given them stumps, so that a hunter only needed to walk up to it and smash its head in.
Oh, and for all the good it's going to do, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 11:29 AM
I think one should feed trolls until they get old and boring, and then put them down. It's kinda the opposite of geting a puppy for Christmas.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:29 AM
"bigger pile of bodies" argument. Meaningless.
Double standard. What part of their religious teachings gave them the ability to devise the notation?
You'd be wrong.
What part of Catholic teachings told him how to develop vaccinations?
Flat out wrong.
Several have already been listed.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Curious @ 77
Wow... just wow... my daughter is in 9th grade and could run circles around you on arguing any of those points. I'm not about to give you a lecture in 11th grade biology, or 10th grade world history... but that's really all it would take to answer most of your issues. I'm sure others here will gladly answer your questions, fully and completely, and you will dismiss the answers with some increasing level of ignorance, as you've done so far.
Please look up "Willful ignorance" and perform a little self-diagnosis. Then again, it's fairly clear that "looking up" information is not your strong suit. Less of course it's in the Bible. Right?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 11, 2008 11:30 AM
So what? They didn't do it in the name of religion, and their knowledge and ideas certainly didn't come from a religious text. Seriously, the religion of a scientist or lack thereof is irrelevant to this issue.
Posted by: Bob L | July 11, 2008 11:31 AM
The bit about Bison is odd coming from people who believe those Indians who hunted them are burning in Hell because they were to lazy to cross the ocean and find about Jesus. With the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality of the fundies that would mean American Indians are Satanists.
Following that logic then bison lungs are proof the existence of the Devil.
Posted by: Curious | July 11, 2008 11:31 AM
"For one thing, lasting contributions to computer science (notice that machine you use to spew your hateful nonsense here?) were made by an atheist scientist."
I don't think my computer is based on a Turing machine as that was just recently shown to be capable of performing all computations.
He became an atheist because his friend died, it's always something, what happend with you? and why are you still bitter about it?
Posted by: E.V. | July 11, 2008 11:31 AM
""Now, if you want things done by ATHEISTS, you need only look at the past 150 years of science to find suitable examples."
Obviously this douche is unaware of 'The Age of Reason" or Cicero or any history at all. He's obviously too dense to be aware he's dense.
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:34 AM
You'd be wrong. In a very big way.
Ad hominem, loaded question, red herring and probably three or four other logical fallacies, all in the space of one sentence. Well done!
Posted by: tsg | July 11, 2008 11:36 AM
I am firmly of the opinion that letting him spew ignorance without refuting it is far more harmful than increasing the thread length. Even if he doesn't really believe what he's saying, dollars to doughnuts someone does.