• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Science and the Bible: Insect Legs

I’m not a real TV watcher, but occasionally I watch Forensic Files, which is a wonderful, popularized but accurate look at how science works. Because of advances in technology, DNA analysis, computers and microscopy among others — all driven by science and not prayer — investigators are able to solve crimes that would have would have gone unsolved even as recently as a couple decades ago. Most of the cases depicted are grisly murders, which makes the show unpalatable, but this is made up for by a fascinating look at how science and high tech solves crimes. Nowadays, no matter what pains a killer takes to cover his tracks, he is almost inevitably tripped up by the tiniest, tiniest clue rigorously subjected to forensic scrutiny. And all this evidence is needed to gain convictions, because the legal system, in the absence of various forms of unavoidable corruption or duplicity (to which science sometimes also falls prey, because these are all human enterprises) operates very much like science. The standard is never proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, but proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
You just said there is great deal of evidence. I literally quoted your post where you said that.

So, what I said was there was a great deal of evidence and I asked does everything have to have evidence. Sorry if I confused you.

I've told you about the evidence.

So, your eyewitness testimony is evidence in this case?

If the story of the Biblical flood was true, we would see evidence of this event in the geologic column and in the genetic records of animals alive today.

1. What does the Bible say about it?
2. How do we know we would see evidence?
3. How do we know we haven't but just don't recognize or accept it?
4. What would the evidence look like and what is the precedence for that knowledge of what it would look like?

We have looked. We drill holes every day for different purposes like geologic surveys, soil exploration for new engineering projects, archaeologic surveys by scientists and so on. Millions and millions of records from all over the world and not one shred of evidence for the flood. Not one site anywhere in the world where the fossil records suggests that the Bible story might be true. Not one site!! We have sequenced the genomes of thousands of animals, again, with zero evidence of any bottlenecks supporting the Bible story. Not only is there no evidence for the flood, there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible flood story is not true, to the point where we can safely rule out this story as being true within any reasonable bounds of certainty.

Who is we? Science? You mean to suggest the science is settled? Is that common in science? How do I know you represent God, I'm sorry, science? Which do you think I would believe?

I am not appealing to authority. I am referencing hard data that virtually anyone with internet access can go look at for themselves. The United States Geological Survey publishes geologic maps and cross sections of the Earth's crust using the data from many tens of thousands of deep borings they have investigated. Similarly, you can find archives of the genome sequences of many animals alive today, if you were to make the effort. Much of this data is available in the public domain and available for free or for a small fee since the underlying work was done with public funds. And that is just in the US. Most developed nations have similar programs. We have looked. You are the person appealing to the authority of the Bible without any supporting evidence and then accusing us of this bad behavior.

So, you appeal to science I appeal to God? You read it somewhere, I read it somewhere. Neither one of us has actually done any science, one of us says that they know for a fact there couldn't have been a flood and one of us says we believe there was, correct?
 
Claiming that “everything has evidence” is misleading.

How could you possibly say that something doesn't have evidence? Do you know what evidence is? Do you disagree with my definition taken from Oxford?

Not all claims have equal evidence, and not all evidence is equally valid.

Then you also disagree with the Oxford definition of claim? Why is it that skeptics always disagree with definitions? God, claim, evidence, sin, faith, truth, myth, reality, fact, etc.

We separate reality from myth by applying rigorous testing, repeatability, and falsifiability.

Oh. Okay. And by we you mean?

The idea that evidence and reality are subjective is a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

I see.

Science is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for distinguishing what is real from what is not.

So, if it says God doesn't exist or a global flood couldn't have happened it must be true? Fact? No evidence of either. You cant define them or describe them, like our alleged common ancestor, but you know all about them otherwise and that is different than dogma, ideology?

A global flood would have left overwhelming and undeniable geological, archaeological, and genetic markers.

Here we go. You are going to tell me what would happen if something that couldn't have happened would have happened. And you have evidence for that. I call that speculative, conjunctural, dogmatic, faith. Nothing wrong with that.

These do not exist.

Hold on - they do not exist or you don't believe them to exist? You have evidence they don't exist because of evidence of what does exist?

I have to admit, I don't have as much faith in science as you seem to have.
 
Claiming that “everything has evidence” is misleading.

How could you possibly say that something doesn't have evidence? Do you know what evidence is? Do you disagree with my definition taken from Oxford?


Which of the 17 different definitions of “evidence” did you cherry pick from Oxford this time/? :rolleyes:

Oxford doesn’t tell you how the world worlds. It tells you how words work, in all their various shades of meaning. Just because a theater balcony is sometimes called “god” does not mean it is venerated or that it created the world.
 
Claiming that “everything has evidence” is misleading.

How could you possibly say that something doesn't have evidence? Do you know what evidence is? Do you disagree with my definition taken from Oxford?

Not all claims have equal evidence, and not all evidence is equally valid.

Then you also disagree with the Oxford definition of claim? Why is it that skeptics always disagree with definitions? God, claim, evidence, sin, faith, truth, myth, reality, fact, etc.

We separate reality from myth by applying rigorous testing, repeatability, and falsifiability.

Oh. Okay. And by we you mean?

The idea that evidence and reality are subjective is a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

I see.

Science is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for distinguishing what is real from what is not.

So, if it says God doesn't exist or a global flood couldn't have happened it must be true? Fact? No evidence of either. You cant define them or describe them, like our alleged common ancestor, but you know all about them otherwise and that is different than dogma, ideology?

A global flood would have left overwhelming and undeniable geological, archaeological, and genetic markers.

Here we go. You are going to tell me what would happen if something that couldn't have happened would have happened. And you have evidence for that. I call that speculative, conjunctural, dogmatic, faith. Nothing wrong with that.

These do not exist.

Hold on - they do not exist or you don't believe them to exist? You have evidence they don't exist because of evidence of what does exist?

I have to admit, I don't have as much faith in science as you seem to have.
Saying that something “doesn’t have evidence” means that no verifiable, testable, or falsifiable data supports the claim. Not all claims are supported by meaningful evidence, and not everything people call evidence meets the standard of scientific or empirical validation. Personal anecdotes, ancient texts, or subjective interpretations are not equivalent to scientifically gathered and repeatable data. For example, someone claiming they saw a ghost might offer their personal testimony as evidence, but without independent verification, physical traces, or repeatability, this evidence is weak at best. The Oxford definition of evidence does not mean that every claim automatically has supporting proof—it only means that claims can be evaluated by the strength and validity of the evidence provided.

Disagreeing with the Oxford definition of claim is not the issue. The issue is that definitions do not establish truth—they are descriptions of how words are used, not proof of a claim’s validity. Skeptics do not reject definitions, they reject misapplications of those definitions to justify unfounded claims. Words like “truth,” “reality,” and “fact” have specific meanings in science, philosophy, and common discourse, but misusing them does not make a claim more valid. If someone claims that “truth is whatever one believes,” that contradicts both logic and the principle of external reality, where truth must correspond to facts, not personal belief. Definitions must be applied correctly in the context of evidence and reality, not as rhetorical tools to win arguments.

When stating “we separate reality from myth,” “we” refers to those who apply critical thinking, the scientific method, and empirical testing to distinguish factual claims from unsupported ones. Science, philosophy, and skepticism are not arbitrary belief systems but structured methods for evaluating reality. If something cannot be tested, falsified, or observed, it remains a belief, not a demonstrable truth. Saying “Oh, and by we, you mean?” does not refute this—it only sidesteps the fact that rigorous investigation is the only reliable way to distinguish between claims based on reality and those based on wishful thinking.

Skepticism does not claim that “if science says something doesn’t exist, it must be true.” Science does not operate on absolute certainty but on probabilities based on available evidence. The absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but when a claim requires evidence and has none, it is rational to reject it until proof is presented. The global flood claim is testable, and it fails every test—it lacks geological, genetic, and archaeological evidence. Claiming that science “cannot define or describe God, a global flood, or a common ancestor” is incorrect. Science does not claim certainty about things it cannot study directly, but it can evaluate the claims made about them. Evolutionary theory provides a detailed, evidence-backed description of human ancestry, while the flood myth fails every scientific standard. The difference is that scientific claims are based on evidence, while theological claims rest on faith—which is not the same as verifiable truth.

Predicting what would happen if something had happened is not speculation—it is a standard scientific process called modeling and hypothesis testing. This is how forensic science determines past crimes, how cosmologists study the early universe, and how geologists reconstruct ancient Earth conditions. Saying that determining what a global flood would leave behind is “speculative and faith-based” misunderstands how science works. If an event like a meteor impact is proposed, we can predict what signs it would leave, such as a crater, shocked quartz, and an iridium layer. If we find those things, we confirm the event. If a global flood had occurred, it would leave specific and unmistakable evidence, yet none exists.

Asking whether “they do not exist, or you don’t believe they exist” is a rhetorical trap that misrepresents burden of proof. If no evidence exists for a claim, it is rational to withhold belief until evidence is provided. The difference between not believing in something and proving it does not exist depends on the claim. If someone claims “there is an invisible, undetectable unicorn in my garage”, the correct position is not to believe it until proof is given, not to “disprove” it outright. The global flood claim is not just unsupported—it is contradicted by every branch of natural science, making belief in it not just unfounded but actively refuted by available evidence.

Claiming that “faith in science is the same as faith in religion” is a category error. Science is not a belief system—it is a method of testing claims against reality. If new evidence contradicts a scientific theory, the theory changes. Religious belief, by contrast, does not adjust based on external reality—it is faith-based, not evidence-based. The irony is that those who accuse skeptics of having “faith in science” are actually demonstrating faith in a flood story despite the complete absence of evidence. Faith in science is trust in a self-correcting method that has produced vaccines, technology, space travel, and medical advancements, while faith in the flood is belief in a story that has no physical, geological, or biological support.


NHC
Claiming that “everything has evidence” is misleading.

How could you possibly say that something doesn't have evidence? Do you know what evidence is? Do you disagree with my definition taken from Oxford?

Not all claims have equal evidence, and not all evidence is equally valid.

Then you also disagree with the Oxford definition of claim? Why is it that skeptics always disagree with definitions? God, claim, evidence, sin, faith, truth, myth, reality, fact, etc.

We separate reality from myth by applying rigorous testing, repeatability, and falsifiability.

Oh. Okay. And by we you mean?

The idea that evidence and reality are subjective is a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

I see.

Science is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for distinguishing what is real from what is not.

So, if it says God doesn't exist or a global flood couldn't have happened it must be true? Fact? No evidence of either. You cant define them or describe them, like our alleged common ancestor, but you know all about them otherwise and that is different than dogma, ideology?

A global flood would have left overwhelming and undeniable geological, archaeological, and genetic markers.

Here we go. You are going to tell me what would happen if something that couldn't have happened would have happened. And you have evidence for that. I call that speculative, conjunctural, dogmatic, faith. Nothing wrong with that.

These do not exist.

Hold on - they do not exist or you don't believe them to exist? You have evidence they don't exist because of evidence of what does exist?

I have to admit, I don't have as much faith in science as you seem to have.
Saying that something “doesn’t have evidence” means that no verifiable, testable, or falsifiable data supports the claim. Not all claims are supported by meaningful evidence, and not everything people call evidence meets the standard of scientific or empirical validation. Personal anecdotes, ancient texts, or subjective interpretations are not equivalent to scientifically gathered and repeatable data. For example, someone claiming they saw a ghost might offer their personal testimony as evidence, but without independent verification, physical traces, or repeatability, this evidence is weak at best. The Oxford definition of evidence does not mean that every claim automatically has supporting proof—it only means that claims can be evaluated by the strength and validity of the evidence provided.

Disagreeing with the Oxford definition of claim is not the issue. The issue is that definitions do not establish truth—they are descriptions of how words are used, not proof of a claim’s validity. Skeptics do not reject definitions, they reject misapplications of those definitions to justify unfounded claims. Words like “truth,” “reality,” and “fact” have specific meanings in science, philosophy, and common discourse, but misusing them does not make a claim more valid. If someone claims that “truth is whatever one believes,” that contradicts both logic and the principle of external reality, where truth must correspond to facts, not personal belief. Definitions must be applied correctly in the context of evidence and reality, not as rhetorical tools to win arguments.

When stating “we separate reality from myth,” “we” refers to those who apply critical thinking, the scientific method, and empirical testing to distinguish factual claims from unsupported ones. Science, philosophy, and skepticism are not arbitrary belief systems but structured methods for evaluating reality. If something cannot be tested, falsified, or observed, it remains a belief, not a demonstrable truth. Saying “Oh, and by we, you mean?” does not refute this—it only sidesteps the fact that rigorous investigation is the only reliable way to distinguish between claims based on reality and those based on wishful thinking.

Skepticism does not claim that “if science says something doesn’t exist, it must be true.” Science does not operate on absolute certainty but on probabilities based on available evidence. The absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but when a claim requires evidence and has none, it is rational to reject it until proof is presented. The global flood claim is testable, and it fails every test—it lacks geological, genetic, and archaeological evidence. Claiming that science “cannot define or describe God, a global flood, or a common ancestor” is incorrect. Science does not claim certainty about things it cannot study directly, but it can evaluate the claims made about them. Evolutionary theory provides a detailed, evidence-backed description of human ancestry, while the flood myth fails every scientific standard. The difference is that scientific claims are based on evidence, while theological claims rest on faith—which is not the same as verifiable truth.

Predicting what would happen if something had happened is not speculation—it is a standard scientific process called modeling and hypothesis testing. This is how forensic science determines past crimes, how cosmologists study the early universe, and how geologists reconstruct ancient Earth conditions. Saying that determining what a global flood would leave behind is “speculative and faith-based” misunderstands how science works. If an event like a meteor impact is proposed, we can predict what signs it would leave, such as a crater, shocked quartz, and an iridium layer. If we find those things, we confirm the event. If a global flood had occurred, it would leave specific and unmistakable evidence, yet none exists.

Asking whether “they do not exist, or you don’t believe they exist” is a rhetorical trap that misrepresents burden of proof. If no evidence exists for a claim, it is rational to withhold belief until evidence is provided. The difference between not believing in something and proving it does not exist depends on the claim. If someone claims “there is an invisible, undetectable unicorn in my garage”, the correct position is not to believe it until proof is given, not to “disprove” it outright. The global flood claim is not just unsupported—it is contradicted by every branch of natural science, making belief in it not just unfounded but actively refuted by available evidence.

Claiming that “faith in science is the same as faith in religion” is a category error. Science is not a belief system—it is a method of testing claims against reality. If new evidence contradicts a scientific theory, the theory changes. Religious belief, by contrast, does not adjust based on external reality—it is faith-based, not evidence-based. The irony is that those who accuse skeptics of having “faith in science” are actually demonstrating faith in a flood story despite the complete absence of evidence. Faith in science is trust in a self-correcting method that has produced vaccines, technology, space travel, and medical advancements, while faith in the flood is belief in a story that has no physical, geological, or biological support.

NHC
 
There was a great flood that killed all living things and buried all the civilizations that existed. And nobody noticed, except for a small tribe of people living in the Middle-East. Ridiculous!
But god did not give them instructions to build boats. (maybe didn't already have any) So they all died-out and didn't record it. /s
God sent great flood to impress Jodie Foster
To be fair. It impressed the jews and christians. Jodie probably knows too much about movie special effects.
 
There must be Holy Cows.
I call on them all the time. When I'm excited.

HOLY COW!!!

See. Like that. I just called one into existence.

NO!

Holy cows can't exist because I don't know what they are or that they are.

Attention and love don't exist unless you can show me some, you can't prove you've shown me and if you could I would deny it, therefore I do.

Perfectly reasonable of me and if you say otherwise, I become very unreasonable because I can't be wrong.
 
See that cow? Now it’s a literal god!

Now it is? And before now it wasn't?

No it isn’t, and no it wasn’t. It’s a drawing. I’m just parodying your (lack of) logic.

Not very well. You said it was a literal god.

It is a drawing of a literal god.

You know why?

Because a god is anything that is worshipped.

Now, y'all seem to be saying there are none. But there are millions of them.

If you actually knew what one was, you would KNOW that you have a few of your own.

It's like germs.

Ignaz Semmelweis
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865) was a Hungarian physician. On July 1, 1846 he was appointed as assistant to Professor Johann Klein in the First Obstetrical Clinic of Vienna General Hospital. The position is comparable to that of the modern-day chief resident. He would examine patients prior to Professor Klein's rounds and supervise problematic deliveries as well as serve in a teaching capacity.

In Europe maternity clinics were incorporated in order to address the problem of the infanticide of illegitimate children, especially among underprivileged women, including prostitutes. Of the two maternity clinics at the hospital the first was known to have a higher mortality rate. Ten percent compared to the second clinic which only had a rate of four percent. It wasn't unusual for women to prefer to give birth in the streets rather than risk delivery in the first clinic. The first clinic was operated by medical doctors and the second by midwives.

Semmelweis was perplexed by the postpartum infections (then commonly known as childbed fever) often experienced by patients in his clinic. In 1847 his friend Jakob Kolletschka died after being accidentally poked with a student's scalpel while performing a post mortem examination. The autopsy revealed a pathology similar to that of the puerperal fever or childbed fever he was seeing in the clinic.

Since the germ theory had not yet been introduced, Semmelweis proposed that some "cadaverous particles" were being transferred from autopsies being conducted by doctors and students to the patients in the maternity, especially given that the midwives in the second maternity clinic didn't have anything to do with autopsies and the cases of childbed fever were significantly fewer there.

He had discovered that chlorinated lime was most effective in removing the putrid stench of autopsy tissue and so proposed its use in careful handwashing when moving from patient to patient, especially from autopsy to maternity. This was implemented in mid-May of 1847 and the mortality fell from eighteen percent in April to two percent by July.


Politics
The medical establishment at the time subscribed to the humoral theory of medicine; an imbalance of the four humors or dyscrasia. They rejected Semmelweis's concept that there was only one reason for the contamination. They also rejected the idea that disease could be spread by the hands of gentlemen. In effect, the science of the day and the arrogance and social mores of the medical profession prevented the obvious from being accepted. The germ theory wouldn't be developed by Pasteur and Lister, among others, until the 1860's - 1870's.

In 1848 Semmelweis expanded his chlorine washing to include the instruments used in the maternity ward. Though he and some of his students had written letters and lectures explaining his work, it wasn't fully understood. His position was that all decaying organic matter was the problem, but similar findings like that of Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. held that a specific contagion circulated from victims of childbed fever themselves.

Then a series of revolutions spread across Europe, including the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. This may have caused some tension between the Hungarian Semmelweis and his superior, the conservative Austrian Johann Klein. When Semmelweis's term had expired, the position was given to Carl Braun instead. He applied for a position as private lecturer but was denied. He reapplied but had to wait for 18 months before being appointed. A few days after being notified of the appointment he left Vienna being "unable to endure further frustrations in dealing with the Viennese medical establishment."

The Austrians stamped out the Hungarian revolution, executing or imprisoning its leaders. Semmelweis's arrival in Pest wasn't likely looked upon with favor. He took a low paying honorary position in a small hospital where childbed fever was rampant. There, Professor Ede Birly of obstetrics, believed that the fever was caused by uncleanliness of the bowel and preferred purging as the treatment. When Birly died in 1854 Semmelweis eventually was appointed to the position of professor of obstetrics and successfully implemented his techniques.


Semmelweis Effect
Semmelweis Reflex, also known as Semmelweis Effect, would become a metaphor for the rejection of new evidence which contradicts the established paradigm. Much of the confusion regarding Semmelweis's views was due to his not having published anything explaining how they differed from the established protocol. In the United Kingdom and United States, they often confused his views to be in line with their belief of contagion, or that miasmas came from the dissecting room and excited puerperal disease. To put it simply, the difference was that Semmelweis believed there was contamination from cadavers which differed from the standard view that it was contagious. The most obvious reason for this confusion is that the former didn't fit with the science of the day since the germ theory wasn't practiced yet.

For example, as Semmelweis's successor, Braun identified in a textbook thirty cases of childbed fever, only one of which he attributed to cadaverous infection. The other cases he attributed the cause as being atmospheric epidemic influences, chilling, conception and pregnancy, emotional traumata, mistakes in diet and pressure exerted on adjacent organs by the shrinking uterus. Though Braun did use chlorine wash, keeping the mortality rate as low as it had been with Semmelweis.

Finally in 1858 Semmelweis published his essay "The Etiology of Childbed Fever," followed by "The Difference in Opinion between Myself and the English Physicians regarding Childbed Fever." In 1861 he published the book "The Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever." In his book he lamented that most lecture halls rejected his theories and that in published journals they were either attacked or ignored.

Reaction And Death of Semmelweis
Though the medical establishment had rejected Semmelweis's chlorine washing of hands and instruments, it was his frustration at this that caused himself the most difficulty. History, it is said, is written by the victors and if history is anywhere near accurate in the case of Semmelweis, he would have saved himself an unfortunate end by setting aside his own ego and shrugging it all off. Or at least presenting his case in a humbler and patient manner.

Having said that it is generally reported that after the release of his book in 1861 he became irrational. He bitterly lashed out at his critics, at times referring to them as irresponsible, murdering, ignoramuses. Which, apparently, they were, but still, repeatedly pointing this out did little to advance his cause.

In 1865 Janos Balassa, along with János Bókai referred Ignaz Semmelweis to a mental institution. He was lured by Ferdinand Ritter von Hebra under pretense of visiting a new institution. Semmelweis quickly realized what was happening and attempted to leave. He was severely beaten by guards, put in a straitjacket and thrown into a dark cell. He died from injuries sustained in the beating two weeks later, on August 13, 1865. He was 47.

Conclusion
It is often said that history repeats itself, and anyone researching the history of Ignaz Semmelweis will no doubt be confronted by this very fact in action. History repeating itself. History is an agreed upon set of lies that are then repeated within the narrative of that, more often than not, deceptive framework. The contribution of Ignaz Semmelweis is incontrovertible. He was right, the medical establishment was wrong. He was right, science was wrong. This can be seen in the fact that it was not unusual for his critics to incorporate his technique of chlorine lime washing, because it worked. The question is, did he descend into madness which warranted his institutionalization?

History says Semmelweis became irrational, especially after his 1861 publication of The Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. He also published Open Letter (Offener Brief) in 1862.

The following is a lithograph of the professors of the medical faculty, University of Pest, made in 1863. Semmelweis stands with arms crossed near the center of the lithograph.

semmelweis.jpg

The charges repeated by history are that Mr. Semmelweis became irrational, absent minded, severely depressed, with nervous complaints, insecure walk, and rapid aging. "My head feels weird," one account reads. He is also accused of embarrassing behavior, immoderate alcohol consumption, avoiding family, collogues and friends and associating with prostitutes.

Though it reads like character assassination most of the charges could be expected from someone in Semmelweis's position. Especially if alcohol was involved, which wouldn't be that unusual for the medical establishment itself. Knowing that very establishment was unnecessarily killing young mothers and babies, the remedy for which was simply washing of the hands, would be difficult to bear. There is no doubt that Semmelweis's reaction brought on much of his own difficulties, but again, the question is, is it likely that a 47-year-old man would have descended into madness in just the two years from the time the lithograph shown above was made until his being institutionalized? The answer is no.

His autopsy report is difficult to find in English, but not terribly relevant since there were apparently two and they were inconsistent. It reads, in part, that the cause of death was "Hyperemia of the meninges and brain. Grey degeneration of the spinal cord. Gangrene of the middle finger of the right hand. Metastatic abscesses on the metacarpus of the left index finger and on the right lower extremity; furthermore, on the left chest perforating through the third intercostal muscle into the costal pleura. Multiple abscesses in the left kidney. Putrid stench of all the large abscesses.

"The pupils were narrow, the dura adherent to the skull, the meninges hyperemic with serous infiltration along the dilated and tortuous blood vessels, partially adherent to the cerebral cortex. The frontal gyri were narrowed. The spinal cord was moist, its surface protruding from the cross-section and the posterior tracts showing greyish stripes, especially in the cervical region, up to the grey substance."

This report is suggesting tabes dorsalis. "Tabes dorsalis is a slow degeneration of the nerve cells and nerve fibers that carry sensory information to the brain. The degenerating nerves are in the dorsal columns of the spinal cord (the portion closest to the back of the body) and carry information that help maintain a person's sense of position. Tabes dorsalis is the result of an untreated syphilis infection. Symptoms may not appear for some decades after the initial infection and include weakness, diminished reflexes, unsteady gait, progressive degeneration of the joints, loss of coordination, episodes of intense pain and disturbed sensation, personality changes, dementia, deafness, visual impairment, and impaired response to light. The disease is more frequent in males than in females. Onset is commonly during mid-life.

"If left untreated, tabes dorsalis can lead to paralysis, dementia, and blindness." (Source)

The infected finger that was allegedly a wound from a gynecological operation, thus causing tertiary syphilis and his mental instability wouldn't have been detectable after the amount of time it would have taken for the disease to have progressed to the point of his needing to be institutionalized. Ten or twenty years. He received the injury during the attack of the guards. Other than the alleged appearance of dementia, which can logically be explained by a strict insistence upon the truth on the part of Mr. Semmelweis, why was there no prognosis prior to his admittance to Niederösterreichische Landesirrenanstalt (Lower Austrian state insane asylum on Brünnlfeld)? The only reason for his admittance was the referral of Janos Balassa, along with the anamnesis (medical history) given by János Bókai.

In 1963-1964 a second autopsy report and pathological and radiological examination was performed on Mr. Semmelweis's bones. The cause of death was determined to be sepsis resulting from a subacute osteomyelitis on his right hand. He died of pyemia. The modern-day suggestions that Mr. Semmelweis may have had Alzheimer's or tertiary syphilis are unfounded and unsupported. As are the suggestions that he was being persecuted due to a possible Jewish ancestry. Semmelweis is a Swabian name. Parish registers beginning with his great-great grandfather, Gyorgy Semmelweis, born and baptized in 1670, attest to the family being Roman Catholic.
 
See that cow? Now it’s a literal god!

Now it is? And before now it wasn't?

No it isn’t, and no it wasn’t. It’s a drawing. I’m just parodying your (lack of) logic.

Not very well. You said it was a literal god.

It was sarcasm, parodying your lack of logic. Everyone else knows that. Why don’t you?
It is a drawing of a literal god.

It’s a drawing of a cow with some symbols on it.

Skipped over the rest of your stuff in this post.
 
Sheese...
I'm now sorry I made a quip about holy cows.
(I forgot about the Indian ones)
I apologize to NHC and all, for dragging us into the muck.

We waded in there a long time ago in this and his other threads. Right now he’s added threads about the biblical definition of pi and also what the bible says about the end of the world. I’ll stick to maths and science about those things.
 
Back
Top Bottom