Hey you piece of shit.... Don't presume to tell me that the most negative points are the core values. I'm talking about what a childhood of being raised a christian is like in this day and age.
If I met you in real life and you told me as much, I would kick the shit outta you.
Good luck tough guy. I'd be surprised if you were ever in a real fight. You refuse to acknowledge homosexuals as human beings; I think it's obvious which parts of the bible you take literally. :D
Since when was this thread solely about your hate for Christians Eiviyn? Let people believe in dragons, Jesus Christ please help this sad sack of flesh remove the giant stick from his rectum......
Why do you hate science and people that think differently than you? What does some random guy marrying another guy have anything to do with you?
I know the bible is completely written by man and holds no real value what so ever, but I was raised a christian and hold true to its core values.
Core values like keeping slaves, stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday, and denying equal rights to people that you don't like? That certainly explains your behavior. Tell me, did your mom post this question to yahoo answers:
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
You're the one that brought it up. I already told you I have no problem with religious people in general. My original criticism was of the catholic anti-gay organizations which use "charity" money to fight against equal rights for gays, as well as your desire to put your religion above all others in the public sphere. As usual, pointing this out qualifies as "pompous elitism", but pushing your beliefs on others on the basis of outdated bronze-age folklore is a-ok! You people truly have a strange sense of entitlement. 60 pages, and so far EternalWraith was the only religious person I've seen to actually call someone out for homophobia.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
And everything in between. It's just hypocrisy of the highest order, and you'll have to forgive me if I show no respect for this. I repeat, if you're going to dictate to other people how to live their lives, then you're opening yourself up to criticism that you rightfully deserve.
Quote:
I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children.
Because I don't have enough pretensions to moral superiority to follow a holy book that explicitly tells me to sell all my possessions, nor am I trying to become a saint.
Religion belongs in the public sector because the public is religious. I consider a white-washed secular culture to be oppressive and, quite frankly, dull. America should own its Christian heritage instead of trying to slide it behind a curtain for the sake of a vocal atheist minority. Allowing things like prayer in schools or religious imagery in government offices should be allowed, though not forced.
Yeah, and I think that bronze-age folklore and prostrating before an invisible sky daddy is dull and oppressive, but I don't try to enact those beliefs into actual law like you guys do. Luckily what you want doesn't matter. That's why we have a constitution. If the majority of people wanted to bring back slavery, then that's just too damn bad, because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, you can't force a religion on the public sector when it means alienating every religion except yours. That's how you establish equality, by not picking one religion over another. The founders made that crystal clear.
Prayer in schools was never banned. People are allowed to pray in school, so I don't see what the problem is. As for religious imagery, keep it, I don't think anybody really cares, least of all me. As long as we get a statue of the Buddha next to a statue of Jesus.
Quote:
Your concern about the "price of religion" is pretty amusing.
Are these adjusted for population? Are the individuals polled once they donate or before? Who did this survey? Where do I find out considering that patheos.com is obviously biased?
I also gave more money when a church basket was shoved under my nose once a week. I'm not any less generous of a person today, probably more. It's not exactly charity if the money goes to your own church, and gets used to help deny equal rights for gays and supports the lifestyle of hypocritical preachers:
Either way, good luck on becoming a "saint" whilst denying equal rights to other religions and gays.
Sunday school isn't a public sector. I see my religion stamped upon all over the public sector by arrogant atheists who want to push their point of view over others. I've seen atheists protest and sue public schools for teachers who say things like "one point of view on the whole evolution thing held by SOME PEOPLE is the concept of creationism." lol
Religion does not belong in the public sector. You can't push your religion on other people without also alienating atheists, muslims, jews, sikhs, and everyone else but you. If the pubic sector remains secular (like it says in the constitution), then nobody will get offended. This is called equality. If you want to teach all points of view, then you should also teach the Norse creation myth. Two lands called Muspellsheim and Niflheim were created ex nihilo. Ymir was the father of the frost giants. He sweated out the first two giants, male & female, out of his underarm. His sons later rebelled and killed him. This caused so much blood to pour forth that everyone drowned, except Beregelmir and his wife, who managed to launch a small boat and escape.
Do you want to deny Norse teachings in the classroom? Or what about the Hindu/Chinese concept of the world-turtle? Should that be taught in the science classroom too? If your answer is no, then how can you complain about "arrogant atheists" pushing their beliefs on you when you're perfectly willing to do it to others?
Quote:
And yes, there are some radical Christians who protest during funerals, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church is a great example for Christianity as a whole. It's too large and complex a category of belief that one tiny example like that just doesn't cut it. I might as well call an elephant white because I saw a white tusk.
True, Westboro Baptist isn't a good example. Nevertheless, when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist. My parents and some of my friends are anti-homophobic & anti-semetic. They're normal decent people, but these are extreme beliefs. You don't understand what kind of price you have to pay for subscribing to religion. I feel the need to post this picture again:
15 million dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? If these people spent as much time doing something good as they did trying to deny equal rights, then maybe something would get done. Again, everyone is an extremist. These guys are on the wrong side of history, and their bigotry will die with them. Our children will look back on these people the same way we look back on people that denied equal rights for women and blacks.
I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't care who knows it. I don't care if that offends you, get over it. There are worse things to be offended by in life.
Nobody cares about what anyone believes. What people get offended by is when you try to dictate public policy and tell people how to live their lives based off your holy book. People can't get an abortion, gays can't marrry, evolution can't be taught in schools. Why do you guys care? There are worse things to be offended by in life that you have to go protest at dead soldier's funerals.
Point is, if you want to dictate to people how to live their lives, that opens your holy book to criticism. Have you ever seen a scientist walk into a Sunday school and say "you know guys, we've refuted all this creationism nonsense and you should really be teaching evolution instead." No. That's the height of arrogance. So why do religious people feel entitled to do the same?
We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do
without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can
also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
I never called it useless. And no, we can't live without other organs such as the heart, brain, or liver the way we can simply remove an appendix and go back to work. You can't fix heart disease by just cutting out the heart. That's what you guys don't seem to get.
Also, get back to me when you have an actual answer to those questions instead of just reiterating how right you are.
Nobody denied that the heart is part of the peripheral nervous system. So are the nerves in your hands & feet & pretty much everywhere else. The mesenteric nervous system has the largest concentrations of neurons in the PNS. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Maybe if the bible had verses like:
"Accept Jesus into your guts"
or
"You will find happiness when you accept God into your bowels"
Then maybe you'd be justified. Though I guess eating the body of Christ (communion cracker) does come close. Too bad that the bible has never been used to discover anything. Any discoveries you claim are made in hindsight, like this one. Most christians will at least admit that the bible is not a science book. But again, I don't need to remind you:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Thanks for demonstrating how this process works yet again.
Quote:
Atheism still a belief system with zero evidence and support.
So is a-santa-clausism, a-zeusism, and a-tooth-fairyism. All "dogmatic" and "zealous" beliefs, that you're part of too by the way (i hope).
Quote:
Gradius will continue to dodge my questions
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
Quote:
That same logic in him talking about the appendix.
I really don't get why you guys are hung up on the appendix. There's a reason it's one of the flagship organs for unintelligent design. Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels? And don't give me diet or that it's "our fault" because I can also use that to explain away cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else.
I have repeatedly acknowledged and dismissed it because I disagree. It
is not a fact because other scientists ALSO disagree. This has nothing
to do with religion or "creationist agendas." There is a longstanding
opinion of the appendix that, until recently, was unchallenged. This
opinion is mistakenly being represented as accepted fact.
What other scientists? The only articles you showed me simply establish that:
1) There is an increased risk for Crohn's after appendectomy....but not really because one of the articles you linked attributes this to diagnostic bias.
2) The appendix provides some auxiliary functions.
Wow, big deal. It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics you're willing to go through simply to deny the fact that people can die from appendicitis.
Quote:
You are quick to point out alternatives but you don't support them. What
are some of these other ways a designer could "more safely" keep
bacteria in reserve for the colon? I also think you're exaggerating far
too much. "Semi-rotting orifice" is not an accurate description of the
appendix. This is your own characterization (opinion) of it.
How do other animals survive without an appendix? When you figure it out, you'll have your answer.
Quote:
You're running in circles now. If you claim they are now biased, then
their conclusions can't be trusted. Their conclusion was diagnostic bias
and this is what you were pointing to as undermining my position. If we
discard this and look only at the results, they support my position and
are consistent with the second study I provided. That study went on to
conclude a likely relationship between appendectomies and Crohn's.
There is nothing dishonest about what I am saying. I'm playing by the
rules you put forth and continue to change. Unfortunately, no matter how
many times you change them, they still prove to support the points that
I am making.
You don't get to make a bold statement like "a flaw that does not exist
in the rest of the GI tract. . . which you refuse to acknowledge" only
to brush it aside when I proved it unequivocally false. This is
PRECISELY what backpedaling is. You attempted to argue that the appendix
is the only part of the GI tract to have this flaw. The flaw being that
it could be obstructed. You didn't say "most likely" or "most commonly,"
you said "does not exist in the rest of the GI tract."
I refuse to let this go. If you are going to accuse me of dishonest and
untoward behavior I expect you to maintain the same standards.
Jesus Christ dude. As I've repeatedly said, there is no other 8 mm segment in the bowels that causes so many problems. Appendicitis would not be an issue if the risk was the same as in the rest of the GI tract. What is so damn hard to understand about this? You are being pedantic and never acknowledge the underlying point.
Quote:
"Brute fact". . . this is a pretty popular term and is used more often
to push opinions than it is actual fact. You should read up on the
Mitrofanoff procedure. It is becoming less and less likely that the
appendix is removed for unrelated surgeries. As I stated earlier, it may
eventually stop altogether. That doesn't sound like "ticking" to me. . .
Are you denying that surgeons routinely remove appendices to prevent further problems?
It looks like the Mitrofanoff procedure is for establishing a catheter. They remove the appendix for this purpose because you don't need it to survive. I'm not sure what your point is.
Quote:
You could use this to argue against intelligent design and I'd happily
concede the point. Even though we are moving to avoid removing teeth, we
have to alter the body in the process. That said, I'm less concerned
with the argument of intelligent design than I am you using the appendix
as a flag bearer.
I don't see why the discovery of some auxiliary functions in the appendix justifies all the cases of appendicitis in your mind.
Quote:
You should read my reply to Eiviyn. I address this specifically. You're
warping a lot of points here to imply that God or space magic or a
designer should have known we'd treat our bodies like crap. Religion
believes we've been given instructions on how to care for our bodies,
but many choose to ignore it.
Being born in crappy circumstances is nobody's fault. What makes you think these people would be in a position to do anything about it even if they did have the right knowledge? Animism was the default religion for the vast majority of humanity's existence. How exactly do you figure it would help those people prevent appendicitis? To suggest that it was their fault is totally asinine. You must be a republican.
Quote:
Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any
actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or
the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that
spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the
appendix.
Here I describe a small sample of cases where the cause is infection (read: not diet or obstruction). I don't get it. Are you trying to prove that you don't read yet again?
Quote:
Except that it doesn't and the new "rules" you lay out dictate we ignore
their conclusions. As mentioned above, removing the conclusion removes
the idea of diagnostic bias. This causes the article to correlate with
the other studies I provided. I'm definitely not on the defensive. If
anything, you're defending my point for me by failing to properly assess
your points before you make them. I did not, originally, expect to
follow up because I didn't think you would fail to understand the
article. I did, however, prepare such support and, upon realizing the
angle you were taking, hoped you'd allow me to do so. There's nothing
hypocritical about being able to consistently point out the flaws in
your arguments.
At no point did I say we ignore the conclusions (though you've been doing that without me just fine). It would help if you just manned up and admitted you didn't read the article. I guess I can buy that your original explanation of appendicitis was poorly worded. But this? No, I'm sorry, you do not give me an article which states that the point you're trying to make is actually a myth.
Quote:
You really have no idea what kind of person I am. I believe in the
philosophy that "how you do anything is how you do everything." If I
don't have the time or knowledge to discuss a topic, I don't. This is
why I've stayed out of most of the subjects in this thread because I
didn't feel comfortable arguing points I lack a communicable
understanding of. Most specifically, a lot of the theoretical sciences
(of reality) being discussed are beyond me because I haven't taken the
time to investigate them. I am aware of membrane theory, but I couldn't
hope to use it in arguing for or against anything.
When I DO decide to participate, I do so with great care. I do not make
a point unless I can support it with other points. I am careful to avoid
making polarizing claims such as "always, never, 100%" because
generalizations are always poor tools for debate. If my points are
false, I will admit them. I check and recheck everything I type before I
post it and I read everything to avoid this. I am an avid reader, I read
very quickly and I enjoy it. If the detail and organization of my posts
(and mapping tutorials of old) are not indicative of this fact, you will
probably never understand this about me.
I argue to be accurate, I don't argue to be right (win).
I'm sorry, but I will never believe you that you knowingly gave me an article which states that your position is a myth. It's almost like you just read the title and that was it. Again, not a big deal, I just can't bring myself to believe you.
Quote:
No, it doesn't prove either point. It simply shows that what we're
talking about is a real problem. It even admits the appendix is "one of
the most disputed" vestigial organs. What this article DOES do is
clarify what, specifically, the appendix is useless at: digesting
cellulose like a caecum. I don't find this statement unreasonable
because it is very specific and accurate.
So you agree that it's a vestigial organ that lost its primary function in humans?
Quote:
It also suggests the appendix is designed poorly but ignores important
details by focusing on ulcerative colitis. I've already pointed out (the
linked studies do as well) that an appendectomy is not a risk factor of
ulcerative colitis. Several studies (as this article mentions) do,
indeed, suggest appendectomies lower the risk of ulcerative colitis.
However, smoking lowers the risk of ulcerative colitis as well, but I
don't consider that a good reason to start smoking. Chemotherapy is a
method of treating cancer, but it harmful side-effects. The point being
that just because its removal has perceived value doesn't mean we should
remove it. Crohn's is closely related to ulcerative colitis, but
appendectomies and smoking have the opposite affect. Chances are you
would trade ulcerative colitis for Crohn's.
We know about the effects of chemotherapy and smoking. It's a strawman to compare those two things to an appendectomy.
Quote:
I do not assume that science proves God
So how does learning more about the universe strengthen your faith? For most people, it simply leaves less things for God to do, and decreases their faith. That's why evolution is such a huge issue with Christians.
Quote:
I contest this by saying that
we, scientifically, do not have such an unshakable understanding of the
human body that we can support this claim. I am very careful to address
religious points with religion and scientific points with science.
You still do not acknowledge the point that the appendix is a non-essential organ in which thousands of people get along fine without. What you have here is basically an appeal to ignorance, and I can't really refute that.
Quote:
2) I'll make the same point I did with Eiviyn: You're talking about less
than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the
leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for
close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these
issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major
contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
Cardiovascular diseases are inevitable and a result of old age. Appendicitis does not have to be. As Eiviyn said, it strikes around 10-30 years old, about the standard lifespan in ancient times.
We need the heart to survive, but we don't need the appendix. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.
Quote:
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major
liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves.
Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to
the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that
appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
Sure, but cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else bar genetic diseases could also be considered "our fault". It still does not alleviate the problem that crap simply gets trapped way too easily in the appendix.
Quote:
Do you know why disease is increasing? No? You can't tell
me appendectomies aren't contributing to this if we're still not sure
what is causing the increase in disease.
Appeal to ignorance. Thousands of people have safely removed their appendices. If disease was increasing in these people, there would be studies about it. The fact that disease is increasing in general is totally irrelevant.
Quote:
How is my attempt to educate you on suggested functions of the appendix
and its relationship with diet and IBD "strawmanning?" You claim that
there are no "major adverse effects" to removing the appendix. These
studies suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you didn't make this
claim and that a straw man typed it for you?
-facepalm
Let's look over your studies showcasing these "major adverse effects".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10211500
This link established that appendectomy has no association with developing ulcerative colitis. It did establish it with Crohn's disease, but for all we know this could be diagnostic bias as your very first article proved.
What are the major adverse effects of appendectomy? You've proven virtually nothing. I have evidence (thousands of people that didn't die from an appendectomy). You have vacancy and an appeal to ignorance. Remind me again why you feel so entitled in this debate?
Quote:
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you
provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The
only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for
"Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some
might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article
closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of
evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as
possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose.
His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about
whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that
claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims
themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts
have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of
these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you
provided is no different.
You need to practice reading comprehension. I asked for documentation of
the fraud that you claimed was "well documented." You gave me a picture
of an arrest record that the containing article points out is
suspicious. You even state that he "was already arrested once for
banking fraud," so even if I did ask for the arrest record, the picture
doesn't have anything to do with banking fraud. I pointed it out then
and I'm pointing it out again now. This picture loses all credibility
when you inspect its source. Something you failed to do.
If this picture is enough for you to believe Joseph Smith was committing
bank fraud, then I could easily use photoshop and an anonymous blog site
to convince you aliens are living inside your brain.
Wow, just wow. What do you not understand about "Well here's the actual records from a google search"? You're going to complain about reading comprehension now? I gave you a picture of his arrest record. The site claims it's suspicious but overall it does not deny that this is the arrest record, which should have cemented your faith that the source was not biased. I made it patently obvious that the link I was providing was from a cursory search in google. At no point did I say that the one picture convinced me (since...you know, the fact that he was arrested is information that you can find anywhere). At no point did I say that this site is valid documentation for his entire career of fraud. I simply said what I wrote: that this is the arrest record I found in a google search.
I am aware that I did not answer your question, but I thought it was obvious that it's because I had no interest in going into the topic with you. I did not think I would have to spell it out for you so explicitly. How utterly dishonest of you to ignore what I actually wrote and claim victory.
Quote:
I am fully aware that many, many efforts
have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of
these to be objectively sound in their documentation.
Of course you didn't. Just like Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims can never find any evidence that discredits their beliefs. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about unfalsifiable history facts. I know that you've probably already dismissed the evidence even if you've seen it. You're not as different from the vast majority of religious people as you think.
Quote:
You have the
audacity to label those participating in this thread that disagree with
you "a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity," yet your actions
would readily include you in this group.
Again, right back at ya buddy. "Audacity"? Are you defending the homophobes in this thread?
Quote:
Step 1) Poor hygienic practices create fecaliths, promote
infection/hyperplasia and contribute to a number of causes for
appendicitis
Step 2) The appendix is obstructed, infected or affected by hyperplasia
(cell growth similar to cancer, linked to diet)
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to
lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia.
This is not yet appendicitis.
Step 4) When that fails, bacteria trapped in the appendix create pus and
toxins leading to inflammation. This is the onset of appendicitis. This
is because "itis" refers to the inflammation of an organ. Thus
appendicitis is when the appendix becomes inflamed.
Step 5) If the appendix bursts or is perforated, its contents spill out
leading to peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum) and/or
septicemia (toxins reach the blood causing widespread inflammation)
Great. But your original claim that "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body." is still false.
Quote:
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia. This is not yet appendicitis.
Wrong. The swelling of mucus increases pressure in the appendix lumen and causes thrombosis of the small vessels. This also leads to inflammation.
Quote:
To address your misunderstanding: Toxins are NOT a symptom of
appendicitis. Toxins and infections cause inflammation.
That's fantastic. Now what I said in reality was: "appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom." Symptom referring to "obstruction or infection".
Symptom - A sign of the existence of something, esp. of an undesirable situation.
I have to provide definitions of common words now because you continue to be pedantic and nitpick semantics, instead of ever acknowledging the underlying point.
Quote:
I didn't take anything back rather I clarified my points, deepening and
further committing to them. I am not abandoning my points and this
precise exchange culminates in your false statement. You got caught and
try to escape the point. THAT is backpedaling.
Yeah you really "caught me" when I stated the obvious: that the rest of the GI tract doesn't have the same problems as the appendix. Sure, it was poorly worded, but you knew exactly what I meant, since you know, I stated it multiple times and I get weary of making it so explicit for you. Are these petty and trivial semantic arguments all you really have left?
Quote:
a considerable portion of
the scientific community contradict what you're saying.
ROFL
Name those things. You are delusional. Even after I told you multiple times that I never denied any of the appendix's functions, you still repeat this tired old diatribe. In the meantime you refuse to acknowledge the fact that:
1) Thousands of people get along fine after an appendectomy and only a small percentage develop Chrohn's, likely because they're already susceptible to it in the first place.
2) The appendix is considered a ticking time bomb by the medical community, which is why sometimes it's removed during unrelated surgeries. The Mitrofanoff procedure that you yourself linked among them.
3) The appendix is not essential to our survival. You can find this on literally any site that talks about the appendix.
4) Many people have died from appendicitis and it is usually fatal if left untreated. Less people would have died overall if this organ never existed.
And then you suggest that I am aggressively forwarding "false information". Wow, just wow. o.o
Quote:
You repeat that I'm not an "authority" on the subject, but I never said
I was. I pointed out that I know what I'm talking about because I did
the research and I'm living the results.
"I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results" is an authoritative statement. <_<
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
If it wasn't for the internet I'd still be religious. Unfortunately, when someone changes his mind, it is never IN the thread itself. It's always afterwards when all the absurdities & inconsistencies start to gnaw at your subconscious.
I literally cannot continue to read this thread without feeling sick
from anger and sadness. I won't continue in this thread for the sake of
my own sanity.
As you should. As all decent people should. Yet taintedwisp/soulcarver only seem to get offended that someone doubts the existence of some magical man in the sky.
The Catholic organization Knights of Columbus has spent $15.8 million to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays since 2005. How else could that money have been spent?
While I could care less about people who keep their beliefs to themselves, the religious right can go fuck itself. These people show absolutely no respect for others, and don't deserve any in return. If they want to dictate public policy and tell others how to live their lives based on archaic bronze-age beliefs, then they should get ready to have those beliefs be rightfully mocked & insulted.
If the appendix can store bacteria, it follows that C. difficile would find its way inside. In a balanced colon, this wouldn't matter as the other bacteria would prevent it from overpopulating. Without this balance, C. difficule leaves the appendix and runs rampant.
I never denied this possible explanation. But again, you're not acknowledging the fact if there was no appendix, this problem would not exist in the first place.
Quote:
Logically, having an appendectomy removes this hidey-hole (preventing C.
difficile rampancy in colons with poor diets), but also precludes other
bacteria that may or may not be beneficial from residing there.
That is not the point. There are plenty of ways for a designer to keep beneficial bacteria in reserve without having to hope that it gets trapped in some semi-rotting orifice and doesn't start causing problems.
Quote:
I provided their opinion because it undermines the point you're trying
to make with this study. You state that we know removing it has no
consequences, but the quoted segment shows that they probably don't have
a complete understanding of the "true function of the appendix."
The authors are also biased because this experiment invalidates their original hypothesis. If they don't know anything about the true function of the appendix, then their quotes on the subject are meaningless. It's the results you look at in a scientific study, even if they don't suggest causality. To say that the authors' speculation (which has already been proven wrong) supports your position is dishonest to say the least.
Quote:
I refuse to acknowledge this "unique" issue because it's brazenly false.
There are a plethora of examples where food gets lodged in both the
small intestines and colon. Crohn's is a common reason for elevating to
a colectomy/bowel resection (similar to appendectomy) whether due to
blockage caused by strictures (narrowings) or severe inflammation.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
Quote:
You're dramatizing the "negative" aspects of the appendix. It is by no
means a time bomb. If your statement held any merit, the majority of
people would suffer appendicitis (to later burst) compared to the
present minority. There aren't enough "explosions" to warrant such a
generalizing statement.
If the appendix wasn't a ticking timebomb, then surgeons wouldn't routinely remove it even during unrelated surgeries. This is a brute fact.
They do the same thing with wisdom teeth. Luckily I still have mine because they never gave me any trouble, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case.
Quote:
My very first point was hygienic practices, not
obstruction.
Humanity had god-awful hygiene for the vast majority (100k+ years) of its existence. Are you acknowledging then that appendicitis killed off way more than its fair share of people in ancient times? Wouldn't an omnipotent creator have accounted for this?
Quote:
To say that appendicitis caused by
infection has nothing to do with diet is ignorant at best.
Where did I say appendicitis has nothing to do with diet? See, I can be pedantic too.
Quote:
I was worried you might miss this, but thankfully you didn't and now I
get to follow up.
Ugh. You can't give me an article that you link as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy" when the article demonstrates that this is actually a myth. I realize that you may be on the defensive here, but there is no saving face from this and I didn't think that you would actually try to play it off like you meant to do it all along. It's not a big deal, I know you don't have time to read every giant article, but it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse me of not reading.
Quote:
Another study mirrors the results of the previous indicating that an
appendectomy is a risk factor for Crohn's. It even goes further to
suggest that a tonsillectomy is also a risk factor for Crohn's.
Ulcerative colitis appears unaffected by either. I guess we found you a
good reason for cutting out your organs!
Looking closer at Crohn's, we find that diet plays a significant role in
preventing relapse. While this particular study used a semi-vegetarian
diet described in the article, it explains the benefits of similar
diets:
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both
plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian,
semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality. Plant-based diets
are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related
chronic diseases. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut
inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
So if diet can be used to treat IBD's, it stands to reason that the risk
of appendicitis could be reduced given the tentatively established
relationship with Crohn's. Especially considering that inflammation is a
key component in all of the above.
Even if you doubt these relationships, we've already agreed that
low-fiber diets contribute to appendicitis. The diets described above
are high in fiber. If, for whatever reason, you change your mind, I'll
leave the relationship between low-fiber diets and the prevalence of
fecaliths (or fecalomas) here for you to review. Fecaliths being the
most common cause of obstructions leading to appendicitis.
One study suggest that some cases of appendicitis could be triggered by
air pollution, which is consistent with an increased risk of Crohn's for
smokers (Crohn's is considered an incurable chronic disorder with
"remission in less than one third of the patients with colonic CD," yet
the study on SVD diets successfully prevented relapse; score one for
diet?).
I'm aware that this isn't scientific fact, but it would be silly to
ignore the growing evidence of connections between these issues. There
are many, many more studies/articles detailing these findings, but I
limited them to ncbi exclusively to avoid "religious bias."
As I already said, I don't deny that the appendix has important functions. My entire point is that these functions could be moved to another organ and avoid the problems of an inflamed appendix. Many animals don't have an appendix. Just like there are animals that are stronger than us, can see further than us, and have to intake much less food than we do. And that's because evolution does not create organisms to be "perfect". Cows don't have an appendix but a fully functional cecum, and that's because they still eat leaves like our ancestors used to. It is common knowledge that the appendix is a vestigial organ (this does not mean it has no functions).
Here's an interesting article that talks about the vestigiality of the human appendix and it's suboptimal design:
Quote:
The human appendix is notorious for the life-threatening complications it can cause. Deadly infection of the appendix at a young age is common, and the lifetime risk of acute appendicitis is 7% (Addiss et al. 1990; Hardin 1999; Korner et al. 1997; Pieper and Kager 1982). The most common age for acute appendicitis is in prepubescent children, between 8 and 13 years of age. Before modern 20th-century surgical techniques were available, a case of acute appendicitis was usually fatal. Even today, appendicitis fatalities are significant (Blomqvist et al. 2001; Luckmann 1989).
The small entrance to this dead-end pocket makes the appendix difficult to clean out and prone to physical blockage, which ultimately is the cause of appendicitis (Liu and McFadden 1997). This peculiar structural layout is quite beneficial for a larger cellulose-fermenting caecum, but it is unclear why gut lymphoid tissue would need to be housed in a remote, dead-end tube with negligible surface area. In fact, 60% of appendicitis cases are due to lymphoid hyperplasia leading to occlusion of the interior of the appendix, indicating that the appendix is unusually prone to abnormal proliferation of its lymphoid tissue (Liu and McFadden 1997). Such an occurrence would be much less problematic if the interior of the appendix were not so small, confined, and inaccessible from the rest of the gut. In many other primates and mammals, the GALT lymphoid tissue appears to function without difficulty in a much more open, bulbous caecum with ample surface area.
But I suppose you'll tell me how this link only serves to prove your point. It's the same way that you like to say that the more you learn about science, the stronger your faith becomes (an oxymoron). The problem with creationist agendas is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Quote:
You're suggesting that if God really was intelligent, he'd
make the appendix shrink to avoid later complications. You base this on
the incredibly limited understanding we have of its function. You
attempt to defend this by claiming that we only notice the appendix when
it has problems. How is that an argument? I don't notice most things in
my body unless their given me problems. That's the point of a healthy
body. . . it doesn't get in your way.
1) I used the words "intelligent designer", not god. The design of the appendix is not remotely intelligent and everyone here knows it.
2) It's an argument because this 8 mm. part of our 20 feet bowel is one of the most common causes for surgeries. 7% of people in the USA get a problem with this one small segment. Despite everything that recent studies are finding, you can't deny that this design where shit gets clogged so easily is sub-optimal. Think about it. It's a long finger-like tube. It is hard to clean it up even with a high fiber diet.
Quote:
Various forms of disease are
becoming more prevalent in the world and in most cases we don't know
why. Until we understand why disease is increasing again (after a period
of rapid decrease), we can't honestly claim that they are no "major
adverse effects" to appendectomies. Smoking was once considered
harmless! We now know better...
Yes we can totally claim that. Sure, it's less than optimal to live with a removed appendix, but the appendix does not have essential functions necessary to our survival....as has been demonstrated by literally thousands of people. Are you really comparing smoking to appendectomy?
Quote:
I find it ironic that you use the straw man defense because I've been
very careful to address only the points you raise, as you raise them. On
the other hand, you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, skewing
facts and ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinions.
...you just gave me an entire spiel on the appendix's functions when I explicitly told you that I never denied that they exist. Who is strawmanning?
Quote:
I've more than demonstrated my ability to read AND comprehend both your
points and the subject matter. You continuously fail to do so.
Give it a rest already. You should be more humble after totally failing to read your own article on Crohn's disease & appendectomy.
Quote:
You conveniently ignore the link you provided "proving Joseph's Smith
fraudulent behavior" that turned out to be nothing of the sort. I
addressed it part way through this post.
No. Just no. You asked for the proof that he was arrested: "I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this."
I picked that site because it had the cleanest picture. Just because I don't want to get into a debate about dubious, unfalsifiable history does not mean I'm "ignoring" anything. I realize that there is probably no way I'll be able to convince you that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you can google that stuff for yourself or watch the south park episode. A picture of his arrest record is enough for me, but not for you.
Quote:
If you take offense to me using the medically accurate term, toxin, in
relation to inflammation, (note the causes) perhaps you should consider
the fact that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I
didn't blame "all our ills" on toxins. For the Nth time, you're putting
words in my mouth.
You said "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
This is wrong, appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom. So you backpedal and say "An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices". You then tell me how the appendix can remove toxins, when everybody knows that the entire problem with the appendix is that bacteria gets trapped in there too easily, which creates pus and eventually releases toxins. Saying that the appendix removes toxins is like saying that Hitler killed a few bad guys back in his day.
I've simply tried to demonstrate the correct etiology of appendicitis. I know that religious people love appealing to authority, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason you should be considered as one. So you have Crohn's disease and read many articles. Well I have headaches and I've read many articles on headaches; that still doesn't make me an authority on headaches.
oh no because no one has ever met a detrimental homosexual? Actually they are everywhere, they are at least 1: 5 people. And its getting worse.
Things i have noticed about homosexuals.
the Women are not clean
and the men are quick to hit women.
I joined this forum because all the members here seem to be intelligent people who demonstrate an understanding of a powerful tool. And then I step into this thread and it's like looking into a whole other world: a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity.
This study supports my statement more than it undermines it.
On what planet? The study is very explicit:
"Conversely, patients who tested positive for C. difficile were more likely to have an intact appendix than those who tested negative. These results suggest that rather than being protective, an intact appendix appears to promote C. difficile acquisition, carriage, and disease."
I don't know why you're giving me the authors' opinions as proof of anything, especially when this study contradicted their original hypothesis that the appendix provided protective functions against the bacteria.
An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices such as overeating,
poor diet and a plethora of other situations predominately perpetuated
by the human responsible for said appendix. And yes, the appendix can
and does remove toxins from the body. Nearly every part of your body
can, in some way, absorb and mitigate toxins.
Yes, a poor diet without fiber will lead to appendicitis because food gets lodged in there. A flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract, and the point which you refuse to acknowledge. You're also naive if you think everyone with appendicitis is guilty of poor diet.
Yes, every part of the body can absorb harmful substances. But saying that the appendix removes toxins is disingenuous, considering how anybody who knows anything about the appendix knows that it's a festering sack of latent disease.
The liver removes toxins. The appendix just sits there like a ticking timebomb.
An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices such as overeating, poor diet and a plethora of other situations predominately perpetuated by the human responsible for said appendix. And yes, the appendix can and does remove toxins from the body. Nearly every part of your body can, in some way, absorb and mitigate toxins. This is precisely what inflammation is: the body sends blood to the location to allow the proper handling of harmful substances. Thus when the appendix is inflamed it is trying to deal with harmful substances. The problem is that we react incorrectly by taking anti-inflammatory medication that hide the problem without addressing the root cause: diet.
Stop backpedaling. You originally said: "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
That is totally wrong. Especially for someone who is supposed to be a self-proclaimed authority on the topic. Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the appendix.
Back to your computer analogy, it's like knowingly putting a faulty sound card into a PC that requires constant supervision because it throws errors, and then blaming the end-user for it, when you could just remove the part in the first place and still be fine with just on-board sound.
This study you linked was a clinical/statistical analysis. They determined that the perceived risk for an increase in Crohn's is likely due to diagnostic bias:
"Such cases of Crohn's disease will probably come to the clinician's attention after the appendectomy, a bias that is likely to be most pronounced within the first few years after an appendectomy."
But if you were too lazy to read the entire article, you could have just...you know, looked at the conclusion at the top of the page:
Conclusion
"The transient increased risk of Crohn's disease after an appendectomy is probably explained by diagnostic bias."
Oh hey, whadya know...
Quote:
We're only beginning to grasp at what the appendix does for us, so to suggest what an "intelligent designer" would really do is silly. For someone who espouses the humility of science, you are quick to use it to support truly ignorant claims.
Newsflash: I never denied that the appendix might have yet-undiscovered important functions. You are not acknowledging the underlying point that yes, in fact, we have been removing appendices without major adverse affects for a long time, and that yes, people can die from sepsis from this one organ because it gets clogged with shit so easily. If you're going to get all sanctimonious it helps to actually read what I say and respond to that instead of some strawman.
Quote:
While it's cool that you can use google and read the first few sentences of a study, you are horribly misinformed in this situation. I know what I'm talking about because my life literally depends on it. I'd appreciate it if you verified your claims before you make a fool of yourself in the future. This is the second time you've posted a link in an effort to bolster your claims that results in the opposite upon closer inspection. I'm wondering if I shouldn't go through all of your posts and provide the same treatment.
Right back at ya. You're going to fail to read my arguments, fail to read my articles, fail to read your own articles, link me creationist sites which talk about how much air is inside of a whale's stomach even though the stomach is not connected to the whale's lungs....and then you're going to complain about my links. Got it.
Should I be surprised that most of your knowledge is restricted to blaming everything on "toxins" - a magical substance that is the cause of all our ills?
Didn't we establish a while ago that soulcarver was a sith lord?
Coincidence?! :0
Also, this is pretty funny:
@SouLCarveRR: Go
Ever heard of the edit button? <_<
Good luck tough guy. I'd be surprised if you were ever in a real fight. You refuse to acknowledge homosexuals as human beings; I think it's obvious which parts of the bible you take literally. :D
Why do you hate science and people that think differently than you? What does some random guy marrying another guy have anything to do with you?
Core values like keeping slaves, stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday, and denying equal rights to people that you don't like? That certainly explains your behavior. Tell me, did your mom post this question to yahoo answers:
Being atheist is like being the 1st grader who figured out Santa isn't real. Even though you are right, if you open your mouth everyone hates you. :P
The hurt feelings card. The last refuge of a loser in a debate. Bye.
You're the one that brought it up. I already told you I have no problem with religious people in general. My original criticism was of the catholic anti-gay organizations which use "charity" money to fight against equal rights for gays, as well as your desire to put your religion above all others in the public sphere. As usual, pointing this out qualifies as "pompous elitism", but pushing your beliefs on others on the basis of outdated bronze-age folklore is a-ok! You people truly have a strange sense of entitlement. 60 pages, and so far EternalWraith was the only religious person I've seen to actually call someone out for homophobia.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
And everything in between. It's just hypocrisy of the highest order, and you'll have to forgive me if I show no respect for this. I repeat, if you're going to dictate to other people how to live their lives, then you're opening yourself up to criticism that you rightfully deserve.
Because I don't have enough pretensions to moral superiority to follow a holy book that explicitly tells me to sell all my possessions, nor am I trying to become a saint.
Yeah, and I think that bronze-age folklore and prostrating before an invisible sky daddy is dull and oppressive, but I don't try to enact those beliefs into actual law like you guys do. Luckily what you want doesn't matter. That's why we have a constitution. If the majority of people wanted to bring back slavery, then that's just too damn bad, because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, you can't force a religion on the public sector when it means alienating every religion except yours. That's how you establish equality, by not picking one religion over another. The founders made that crystal clear.
Prayer in schools was never banned. People are allowed to pray in school, so I don't see what the problem is. As for religious imagery, keep it, I don't think anybody really cares, least of all me. As long as we get a statue of the Buddha next to a statue of Jesus.
Are these adjusted for population? Are the individuals polled once they donate or before? Who did this survey? Where do I find out considering that patheos.com is obviously biased?
35% of donations goes to religious causes if the candidates are anything to go by: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html?ref=sunday-review
In the meantime, atheists give money to causes that don't directly benefit themselves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/atheist-charity-giving_n_1163925.html
And some more food for thought since you like statistics:
http://humourtouch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Good-without-God.png
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
I also gave more money when a church basket was shoved under my nose once a week. I'm not any less generous of a person today, probably more. It's not exactly charity if the money goes to your own church, and gets used to help deny equal rights for gays and supports the lifestyle of hypocritical preachers:
Either way, good luck on becoming a "saint" whilst denying equal rights to other religions and gays.
Religion does not belong in the public sector. You can't push your religion on other people without also alienating atheists, muslims, jews, sikhs, and everyone else but you. If the pubic sector remains secular (like it says in the constitution), then nobody will get offended. This is called equality. If you want to teach all points of view, then you should also teach the Norse creation myth. Two lands called Muspellsheim and Niflheim were created ex nihilo. Ymir was the father of the frost giants. He sweated out the first two giants, male & female, out of his underarm. His sons later rebelled and killed him. This caused so much blood to pour forth that everyone drowned, except Beregelmir and his wife, who managed to launch a small boat and escape.
Do you want to deny Norse teachings in the classroom? Or what about the Hindu/Chinese concept of the world-turtle? Should that be taught in the science classroom too? If your answer is no, then how can you complain about "arrogant atheists" pushing their beliefs on you when you're perfectly willing to do it to others?
True, Westboro Baptist isn't a good example. Nevertheless, when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist. My parents and some of my friends are anti-homophobic & anti-semetic. They're normal decent people, but these are extreme beliefs. You don't understand what kind of price you have to pay for subscribing to religion. I feel the need to post this picture again:
15 million dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? If these people spent as much time doing something good as they did trying to deny equal rights, then maybe something would get done. Again, everyone is an extremist. These guys are on the wrong side of history, and their bigotry will die with them. Our children will look back on these people the same way we look back on people that denied equal rights for women and blacks.
Nobody cares about what anyone believes. What people get offended by is when you try to dictate public policy and tell people how to live their lives based off your holy book. People can't get an abortion, gays can't marrry, evolution can't be taught in schools. Why do you guys care? There are worse things to be offended by in life that you have to go protest at dead soldier's funerals.
Point is, if you want to dictate to people how to live their lives, that opens your holy book to criticism. Have you ever seen a scientist walk into a Sunday school and say "you know guys, we've refuted all this creationism nonsense and you should really be teaching evolution instead." No. That's the height of arrogance. So why do religious people feel entitled to do the same?
I never called it useless. And no, we can't live without other organs such as the heart, brain, or liver the way we can simply remove an appendix and go back to work. You can't fix heart disease by just cutting out the heart. That's what you guys don't seem to get.
Also, get back to me when you have an actual answer to those questions instead of just reiterating how right you are.
@EternalWraith: Go
Nobody denied that the heart is part of the peripheral nervous system. So are the nerves in your hands & feet & pretty much everywhere else. The mesenteric nervous system has the largest concentrations of neurons in the PNS. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Maybe if the bible had verses like:
"Accept Jesus into your guts"
or
"You will find happiness when you accept God into your bowels"
Then maybe you'd be justified. Though I guess eating the body of Christ (communion cracker) does come close. Too bad that the bible has never been used to discover anything. Any discoveries you claim are made in hindsight, like this one. Most christians will at least admit that the bible is not a science book. But again, I don't need to remind you:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Thanks for demonstrating how this process works yet again.
So is a-santa-clausism, a-zeusism, and a-tooth-fairyism. All "dogmatic" and "zealous" beliefs, that you're part of too by the way (i hope).
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
I really don't get why you guys are hung up on the appendix. There's a reason it's one of the flagship organs for unintelligent design. Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels? And don't give me diet or that it's "our fault" because I can also use that to explain away cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else.
What other scientists? The only articles you showed me simply establish that:
1) There is an increased risk for Crohn's after appendectomy....but not really because one of the articles you linked attributes this to diagnostic bias.
2) The appendix provides some auxiliary functions.
Wow, big deal. It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics you're willing to go through simply to deny the fact that people can die from appendicitis.
How do other animals survive without an appendix? When you figure it out, you'll have your answer.
1) I was talking about this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279496/ not this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000241/
2) Both articles conclusions are valid. You cherrypicked one sentence from the discussion/intro/whatever in the first one which has nothing to do with what the study actually found. This is called dishonesty.
Jesus Christ dude. As I've repeatedly said, there is no other 8 mm segment in the bowels that causes so many problems. Appendicitis would not be an issue if the risk was the same as in the rest of the GI tract. What is so damn hard to understand about this? You are being pedantic and never acknowledge the underlying point.
Are you denying that surgeons routinely remove appendices to prevent further problems?
It looks like the Mitrofanoff procedure is for establishing a catheter. They remove the appendix for this purpose because you don't need it to survive. I'm not sure what your point is.
I don't see why the discovery of some auxiliary functions in the appendix justifies all the cases of appendicitis in your mind.
Being born in crappy circumstances is nobody's fault. What makes you think these people would be in a position to do anything about it even if they did have the right knowledge? Animism was the default religion for the vast majority of humanity's existence. How exactly do you figure it would help those people prevent appendicitis? To suggest that it was their fault is totally asinine. You must be a republican.
Here I describe a small sample of cases where the cause is infection (read: not diet or obstruction). I don't get it. Are you trying to prove that you don't read yet again?
At no point did I say we ignore the conclusions (though you've been doing that without me just fine). It would help if you just manned up and admitted you didn't read the article. I guess I can buy that your original explanation of appendicitis was poorly worded. But this? No, I'm sorry, you do not give me an article which states that the point you're trying to make is actually a myth.
I'm sorry, but I will never believe you that you knowingly gave me an article which states that your position is a myth. It's almost like you just read the title and that was it. Again, not a big deal, I just can't bring myself to believe you.
So you agree that it's a vestigial organ that lost its primary function in humans?
We know about the effects of chemotherapy and smoking. It's a strawman to compare those two things to an appendectomy.
So how does learning more about the universe strengthen your faith? For most people, it simply leaves less things for God to do, and decreases their faith. That's why evolution is such a huge issue with Christians.
You still do not acknowledge the point that the appendix is a non-essential organ in which thousands of people get along fine without. What you have here is basically an appeal to ignorance, and I can't really refute that.
Cardiovascular diseases are inevitable and a result of old age. Appendicitis does not have to be. As Eiviyn said, it strikes around 10-30 years old, about the standard lifespan in ancient times.
We need the heart to survive, but we don't need the appendix. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.
Sure, but cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else bar genetic diseases could also be considered "our fault". It still does not alleviate the problem that crap simply gets trapped way too easily in the appendix.
Appeal to ignorance. Thousands of people have safely removed their appendices. If disease was increasing in these people, there would be studies about it. The fact that disease is increasing in general is totally irrelevant.
-facepalm
Let's look over your studies showcasing these "major adverse effects".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000241/
This is what you advertised as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy", yet the conclusion shows that this is a myth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10211500
This link established that appendectomy has no association with developing ulcerative colitis. It did establish it with Crohn's disease, but for all we know this could be diagnostic bias as your very first article proved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877178/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1250841/
Diet plays a significant role. Something I already admitted a long time ago yet you keep repeating because you simply have nothing else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764754/
Appendicitis can be triggered by air pollution. Great. Now you can stop rambling about diet for a second.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332285/
Increased risk for Crohn's in smokers. Irrelevant.
What are the major adverse effects of appendectomy? You've proven virtually nothing. I have evidence (thousands of people that didn't die from an appendectomy). You have vacancy and an appeal to ignorance. Remind me again why you feel so entitled in this debate?
Wow, just wow. What do you not understand about "Well here's the actual records from a google search"? You're going to complain about reading comprehension now? I gave you a picture of his arrest record. The site claims it's suspicious but overall it does not deny that this is the arrest record, which should have cemented your faith that the source was not biased. I made it patently obvious that the link I was providing was from a cursory search in google. At no point did I say that the one picture convinced me (since...you know, the fact that he was arrested is information that you can find anywhere). At no point did I say that this site is valid documentation for his entire career of fraud. I simply said what I wrote: that this is the arrest record I found in a google search.
I am aware that I did not answer your question, but I thought it was obvious that it's because I had no interest in going into the topic with you. I did not think I would have to spell it out for you so explicitly. How utterly dishonest of you to ignore what I actually wrote and claim victory.
Of course you didn't. Just like Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims can never find any evidence that discredits their beliefs. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about unfalsifiable history facts. I know that you've probably already dismissed the evidence even if you've seen it. You're not as different from the vast majority of religious people as you think.
Again, right back at ya buddy. "Audacity"? Are you defending the homophobes in this thread?
Great. But your original claim that "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body." is still false.
Wrong. The swelling of mucus increases pressure in the appendix lumen and causes thrombosis of the small vessels. This also leads to inflammation.
That's fantastic. Now what I said in reality was: "appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom." Symptom referring to "obstruction or infection".
Symptom - A sign of the existence of something, esp. of an undesirable situation.
I have to provide definitions of common words now because you continue to be pedantic and nitpick semantics, instead of ever acknowledging the underlying point.
Yeah you really "caught me" when I stated the obvious: that the rest of the GI tract doesn't have the same problems as the appendix. Sure, it was poorly worded, but you knew exactly what I meant, since you know, I stated it multiple times and I get weary of making it so explicit for you. Are these petty and trivial semantic arguments all you really have left?
ROFL
Name those things. You are delusional. Even after I told you multiple times that I never denied any of the appendix's functions, you still repeat this tired old diatribe. In the meantime you refuse to acknowledge the fact that:
1) Thousands of people get along fine after an appendectomy and only a small percentage develop Chrohn's, likely because they're already susceptible to it in the first place.
2) The appendix is considered a ticking time bomb by the medical community, which is why sometimes it's removed during unrelated surgeries. The Mitrofanoff procedure that you yourself linked among them.
3) The appendix is not essential to our survival. You can find this on literally any site that talks about the appendix.
4) Many people have died from appendicitis and it is usually fatal if left untreated. Less people would have died overall if this organ never existed.
And then you suggest that I am aggressively forwarding "false information". Wow, just wow. o.o
"I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results" is an authoritative statement. <_<
If it wasn't for the internet I'd still be religious. Unfortunately, when someone changes his mind, it is never IN the thread itself. It's always afterwards when all the absurdities & inconsistencies start to gnaw at your subconscious.
As you should. As all decent people should. Yet taintedwisp/soulcarver only seem to get offended that someone doubts the existence of some magical man in the sky.
The Catholic organization Knights of Columbus has spent $15.8 million to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays since 2005. How else could that money have been spent?
While I could care less about people who keep their beliefs to themselves, the religious right can go fuck itself. These people show absolutely no respect for others, and don't deserve any in return. If they want to dictate public policy and tell others how to live their lives based on archaic bronze-age beliefs, then they should get ready to have those beliefs be rightfully mocked & insulted.
I never denied this possible explanation. But again, you're not acknowledging the fact if there was no appendix, this problem would not exist in the first place.
That is not the point. There are plenty of ways for a designer to keep beneficial bacteria in reserve without having to hope that it gets trapped in some semi-rotting orifice and doesn't start causing problems.
The authors are also biased because this experiment invalidates their original hypothesis. If they don't know anything about the true function of the appendix, then their quotes on the subject are meaningless. It's the results you look at in a scientific study, even if they don't suggest causality. To say that the authors' speculation (which has already been proven wrong) supports your position is dishonest to say the least.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
If the appendix wasn't a ticking timebomb, then surgeons wouldn't routinely remove it even during unrelated surgeries. This is a brute fact.
They do the same thing with wisdom teeth. Luckily I still have mine because they never gave me any trouble, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case.
Humanity had god-awful hygiene for the vast majority (100k+ years) of its existence. Are you acknowledging then that appendicitis killed off way more than its fair share of people in ancient times? Wouldn't an omnipotent creator have accounted for this?
Where did I say appendicitis has nothing to do with diet? See, I can be pedantic too.
Ugh. You can't give me an article that you link as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy" when the article demonstrates that this is actually a myth. I realize that you may be on the defensive here, but there is no saving face from this and I didn't think that you would actually try to play it off like you meant to do it all along. It's not a big deal, I know you don't have time to read every giant article, but it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse me of not reading.
As I already said, I don't deny that the appendix has important functions. My entire point is that these functions could be moved to another organ and avoid the problems of an inflamed appendix. Many animals don't have an appendix. Just like there are animals that are stronger than us, can see further than us, and have to intake much less food than we do. And that's because evolution does not create organisms to be "perfect". Cows don't have an appendix but a fully functional cecum, and that's because they still eat leaves like our ancestors used to. It is common knowledge that the appendix is a vestigial organ (this does not mean it has no functions).
Here's an interesting article that talks about the vestigiality of the human appendix and it's suboptimal design:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
But I suppose you'll tell me how this link only serves to prove your point. It's the same way that you like to say that the more you learn about science, the stronger your faith becomes (an oxymoron). The problem with creationist agendas is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
1) I used the words "intelligent designer", not god. The design of the appendix is not remotely intelligent and everyone here knows it.
2) It's an argument because this 8 mm. part of our 20 feet bowel is one of the most common causes for surgeries. 7% of people in the USA get a problem with this one small segment. Despite everything that recent studies are finding, you can't deny that this design where shit gets clogged so easily is sub-optimal. Think about it. It's a long finger-like tube. It is hard to clean it up even with a high fiber diet.
Yes we can totally claim that. Sure, it's less than optimal to live with a removed appendix, but the appendix does not have essential functions necessary to our survival....as has been demonstrated by literally thousands of people. Are you really comparing smoking to appendectomy?
...you just gave me an entire spiel on the appendix's functions when I explicitly told you that I never denied that they exist. Who is strawmanning?
Give it a rest already. You should be more humble after totally failing to read your own article on Crohn's disease & appendectomy.
No. Just no. You asked for the proof that he was arrested: "I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this."
I gave it to you in the form of his arrest record:
"Well here's the actual records from a google search:
http://byulaw.blogspot.com/2005/09/joseph-smiths-arrest-records-found.html"
I picked that site because it had the cleanest picture. Just because I don't want to get into a debate about dubious, unfalsifiable history does not mean I'm "ignoring" anything. I realize that there is probably no way I'll be able to convince you that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you can google that stuff for yourself or watch the south park episode. A picture of his arrest record is enough for me, but not for you.
You said "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
This is wrong, appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom. So you backpedal and say "An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices". You then tell me how the appendix can remove toxins, when everybody knows that the entire problem with the appendix is that bacteria gets trapped in there too easily, which creates pus and eventually releases toxins. Saying that the appendix removes toxins is like saying that Hitler killed a few bad guys back in his day.
I've simply tried to demonstrate the correct etiology of appendicitis. I know that religious people love appealing to authority, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason you should be considered as one. So you have Crohn's disease and read many articles. Well I have headaches and I've read many articles on headaches; that still doesn't make me an authority on headaches.
I joined this forum because all the members here seem to be intelligent people who demonstrate an understanding of a powerful tool. And then I step into this thread and it's like looking into a whole other world: a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity.
I guess that's what religion is good for.
On what planet? The study is very explicit:
"Conversely, patients who tested positive for C. difficile were more likely to have an intact appendix than those who tested negative. These results suggest that rather than being protective, an intact appendix appears to promote C. difficile acquisition, carriage, and disease."
I don't know why you're giving me the authors' opinions as proof of anything, especially when this study contradicted their original hypothesis that the appendix provided protective functions against the bacteria.
Yes, a poor diet without fiber will lead to appendicitis because food gets lodged in there. A flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract, and the point which you refuse to acknowledge. You're also naive if you think everyone with appendicitis is guilty of poor diet.
Yes, every part of the body can absorb harmful substances. But saying that the appendix removes toxins is disingenuous, considering how anybody who knows anything about the appendix knows that it's a festering sack of latent disease.
The liver removes toxins. The appendix just sits there like a ticking timebomb.
Stop backpedaling. You originally said: "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
That is totally wrong. Especially for someone who is supposed to be a self-proclaimed authority on the topic. Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the appendix.
Back to your computer analogy, it's like knowingly putting a faulty sound card into a PC that requires constant supervision because it throws errors, and then blaming the end-user for it, when you could just remove the part in the first place and still be fine with just on-board sound.
- mega facepalm
This study you linked was a clinical/statistical analysis. They determined that the perceived risk for an increase in Crohn's is likely due to diagnostic bias:
"Such cases of Crohn's disease will probably come to the clinician's attention after the appendectomy, a bias that is likely to be most pronounced within the first few years after an appendectomy."
But if you were too lazy to read the entire article, you could have just...you know, looked at the conclusion at the top of the page:
Conclusion
"The transient increased risk of Crohn's disease after an appendectomy is probably explained by diagnostic bias."
Oh hey, whadya know...
Newsflash: I never denied that the appendix might have yet-undiscovered important functions. You are not acknowledging the underlying point that yes, in fact, we have been removing appendices without major adverse affects for a long time, and that yes, people can die from sepsis from this one organ because it gets clogged with shit so easily. If you're going to get all sanctimonious it helps to actually read what I say and respond to that instead of some strawman.
Right back at ya. You're going to fail to read my arguments, fail to read my articles, fail to read your own articles, link me creationist sites which talk about how much air is inside of a whale's stomach even though the stomach is not connected to the whale's lungs....and then you're going to complain about my links. Got it.
Should I be surprised that most of your knowledge is restricted to blaming everything on "toxins" - a magical substance that is the cause of all our ills?