Drug resistant swine flu

GT regularly shows himself to be one of the most prejudiced persons on this board. he is a anti-religious bigot of the worst kind. if those of us who believe in God said as hateful things to GT as he says about us, we would be shouted down.
 
GT,
Frankly, I'm disappointed that you failed to elucidate sound reasons for public funding of basic scientific research, and instead went for the flippant one-liner that mischaracterized my statement. After all, this isn't the West Mall.

For the record, I am in favor of public funding of scientific research, but I find the current mechanisms of providing said funding to be shady in many cases. And I deem that scientists who play a dual role as "activists" while taking that money cast a large, dark shadow which is heavily contributory to said shadiness.
 
I agree that scientists shouldn't be priests. However, I see nothing wrong with scientists trying to influence policy.
__________________________________________________

I find it interesting that scientists today hold the same role to our leaders today as the church did to the monarchs of old. they have their own religion which is basically faith based, they influence policy (cap and trade would be the greatest intrusion into private lives in human history) and they are now in some ways as corrupt as the church at one time became (they see those green dollars and opportunities in green energy). Lets face it, environmentalists have practiced a form of genocide. the mass murder or villages and populations from disease because of the banning of chemical substances like ddt that eliminated malaria in the industrialized world.

Those that hate religion because of past "evils"...welcome to the club.
 
Sangre Naranjada,

You're right. 'Flippant one-liners' don't do much to advance discourse. I agree with you that the current public funding system can lead to abuses and bad science. Funding priorities at NSF and NIH are determined by political pressure. The political establishment decrees a 'War on Cancer' or 'Man to Mars' and then the scientists at the federal funding agencies are left to decide which proposals may best contribute to that priority.

The problem is that politicians get excited about strange things. Politicians aren't nearly as excited about Mars as they are about votes.

Who should set America's scientific priorities? I think the answer is scientists. No one is more aware of where the break-throughs are ready to happen. No one is more aware of where the human needs lie. Should scientists be activists? Hell yes. Hopefully the reason the virologist chose his field is passion about science and human health. She has every right to make the case for increased funding for her research. She has every responsibility to push for greater attention to the subject of emerging diseases and the threat they pose for humanity.

I can't imagine any successful scientist who isn't an activist. That includes medical scientists who are trying to cure some dread disease, agricultural scients who are trying to feed an over-populated world, and climatologists who recognize that man's release of fossil C will severely impact the quality of life for our children and grandchildren.

I appologize for not taking your earlier response seriously.

texasflag.gif
 
MOP,

Once again you mistake my dislike of you with a dislike of the things you think defines you. I am not "anti-religious". Religion is just one more cultural institution. Religion is, in and of itself, neither good nor bad. In the right hands it can accomplish great good. It can advocate for the poor and suffering, it can feed those who cannot feed themselves, and it can voice the best instincts of our culture. In the wrong hands religion can be a rallying point for bigotry, hate, and anti-intellectualism.

texasflag.gif
 
wrong GT, you said nothing about me, this was on a thread that i had not even contributed to and on a board that i have not contributed to in weeks. you were just showing your true colors once again. stop kidding yourself...you are an anti-religious bigot of the worst kind. (well, maybe not the "worst" kind, but pretty bad nonetheless!).

and everything you accused "religion" of when "in the wrong hands" is true of you as one who rejects religion. you use your anti-religious perspective as a rallying point for "bigotry, hate and anti-intellectualism" on this board all the time. rather than taking on arguments you take on the person behind the argument falling for the classic "ad hominem" over and over again. that is terribly bigoted, hateful and anti-intellectual.
 
nice GT...i see that once again you can't respond to substance but fall back instead on your favorite fallacy. but really....another variation of ad hominem? can't you try and use some other fallacies just to keep it interesting?
 
Mop
Note "any cultural institution". So, these things subject to criticism are the natural dilemma of humanity, independent of cultural institution. Its not about religion, its about ... those particular foibles under critique.

Science denial seems to you an objectionable label. Why?
 
Misha... There seems to be two definitions of science that seem to be used interchangeably.

#1. Science as defined by Wiki that uses the scientific method i have no problem with.

#2. Science thats defined by everything having a naturalistic explanation. Have a big problem with.

Problem is I may disagree with evolution on definition #1. (how can evolution on a grand scale even be testable??) Science by definition should be something thats predictable... yet the precambrian explosion and other evidences DO NOT line up with what you'd expect if evolution were true. Why can't the scientists at least be honest and say... there are evidences for & against. We can't be sure. Yet most tout that its an indisputable FACT. Really?

Phillip Johnson says it well,
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
not God, but intelligence......

we regularly use science to rule out all reasonable possibilities that don't include intelligent agency and settle on intelligence. forensics, archaeology, anthropology.....etc but for some reason we rule intelligence out of the macro-questions. doesn't seem very scientific to me. why rule it out a priori?
 
May the urine burn like kerosene in your hyena genitals* if you turn this into another ******* ID thread.

*Credit: ScipioTex
 
GT, the intelligence could be anyone. it may be a race of super human beings. that's not the point. the point is that if intelligent agency is required it should not be ruled out a priori. do you disagree?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
GT,

Why did you even bother to make a comment about the swine flu? It is apparent you want to bash the religious. Did you know that a majority ( approx. 2/3rds) of scientists believe in god?
 
Uninformed,

I made the OP for two reasons: 1st - I find epidemiology interesting and 2nd - I thought this was a prime example of how an understanding of evolution had practical importance for mankind.

As for 'bashing the religious', that wasn't my intent at all. I have no issue with people like Francis Collins and Ken Miler - eminent scientists who accept evolutionary theory and yet are committed members of the Faith. The religious I do take issue with are those who insist that their religious beliefs be taught in the science classroom.

texasflag.gif
 
Well then talk about epidemiology. The swine flu may be more dangerous than influenza and it may be less dangerous. It is a danger because its virulence and potential virulence is unknown. There are plenty of viruses that cause little harm and aren't discussed much. The importance of this one is primarily its relation to influenza and its recent emergence. As for mutation to a more virulent strain, while this is certainty possible and has happened in the past, a virus that kills the majority of its host quickly goes against natural selection as symbiosis offers continued viral survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top