It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation or Evolution, which is more important?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Test your faith.

What child hasn’t been taught values out of the fear of god? When someone sneezes “god bless you” is said. Why? This is a very presumptuous statement. Making the assumption that, anyone thinks there is a god and that sneezing has some association with that god. Would you say, “god bless you” to an atheist? Pretty insulting really, imposing your beliefs like that.

Perhaps not all but, many children are taught that the thunder and lightning are the work of god. The loud unstoppable thunder is very frightening, so anything with the power to make it is also frightening. To make people/children think that you understand this power or that you can communicate to this power, can make those people/children follow your words/wishes. Very effective if the child/person thinks that thunder is a willed activity by a ubiquitous all-powerful being that can’t be stopped.

Churches exist (to use this power to control the people/money) because of mythology and the reining cult (the Roman Catholic Church).
Hospitals exist only because of the facts of life that are part of evolution.
Without the firm understanding of biology (the major part of evolution) we would not have hospitals. We would have the Barbers for a good leaching.

So I ask you,
If a devout catholic person gets struck down by lightning (the work of god) would you take them to the church or the hospital?

Your action (not answer) is proof of your belief.


If they die at the hospital it was the work of god. (Sort of hypocritical don’t you think)
But
If they die at the church you will be jailed for manslaughter (or stupidity, whatever).

When you get right down to it every factual portion of our functioning society firmly supports the Theory of Evolution. It is the law. You will be jailed for taking an injured person to church instead of the hospital (understanding the Theory of Evolution at work) because society (the laws of the land) knows there is no benevolent god. No ones life gets saved at church.

If there were a god to punish evil we would not need the judicial system, anywhere.
How many tests (life threatening situations) do you need to prove you don’t have faith?



You can either have a church or a hospital, which is more important

for your infant?




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Mind you, my church days were a lot of years ago - but there were many of them.

I remember being taught that, just as that God says to obey the laws of the land one lives in, he also says to use the knowledge he has given us. Which, in my opinion, kills your theory, as the knowledge we have is the knowledge that heals - making medicine a good action in the eyes of that God.

As for the concept of God punishing evil, I believe that would come under free will that evil ones also possess, laws of the land (as stated above), and the fact that God stated that he will deal with the evil ones at the end of mans days on Earth.

NN



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
My point is that if there were a god to punish evil we would not need the laws of the land in the first place.


What medical knowledge has any god given us?

Medicine is the result of understanding biology it does/did not come from a god.
Animal/human testing; pain, torture, death all part of medical knowledge. Good in the eyes of god right?'
'

Understanding biology caused a creationist to write The Origin of the Species.


Isn't it a sin to distroy life?
A surgens knife must distroy before it can heal.
So surgery is forbiden if you have faith, but hey you can go to confession for that sin.



For some relious groups all medical treatment is forbiden.
Now they have faith. Lots of deaths too.



Originally posted by NoNik
....and the fact that God stated that he will deal with the evil ones at the end of mans days on Earth.

NN


How is that a fact? Who heard this statement?

What does it mean?'
'

He won't punish any individual ever. He will kill everyone eventually. Oh great!

He will kill the innocent along with the guilty. How sadistic, this god.

Punishment is meant to protect the innocent from further harm.
Ending mans days on earth would not accomplish that.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Test your faith.

What child hasn’t been taught values out of the fear of god? When someone sneezes “god bless you” is said. Why?


The saying started during the plague... ie, if you sneezed then maybe you had it. Guess it stuck: Here you go. Besides it's better than gazuntite (can't possibly be spelled correctly.)


This is a very presumptuous statement. Making the assumption that, anyone thinks there is a god and that sneezing has some association with that god. Would you say, “god bless you” to an atheist? Pretty insulting really, imposing your beliefs like that.


If you're so easily offended I'm afraid you have more to worry about than somebody saying God bless you. Nobody is imposing their beliefs on you by saying it, that's just paranoia. I imagine most reasonable people (atheists included) see it for what it is; common courtesy.




Perhaps not all but, many children are taught that the thunder and lightning are the work of god. The loud unstoppable thunder is very frightening, so anything with the power to make it is also frightening. To make people/children think that you understand this power or that you can communicate to this power, can make those people/children follow your words/wishes. Very effective if the child/person thinks that thunder is a willed activity by a ubiquitous all-powerful being that can’t be stopped.


I just tell 'em, "cause I said so." That works too... You're more than welcome to sit down and explain meterology and thermodynamics to a toddler if you want to though. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you don't have kids.



Churches exist (to use this power to control the people/money) because of mythology and the reining cult (the Roman Catholic Church).


You're aware of ALL those churches that are not affiliated, in any way, shape, or form, withh the RCC... yes? Where do they fall in your little 'Reigning cult to control people/money'?



Hospitals exist only because of the facts of life that are part of evolution.
Without the firm understanding of biology (the major part of evolution) we would not have hospitals. We would have the Barbers for a good leaching.


Just keeps getting better. First hospitals/medicine pre-dates evolution, second ask a Doctor, any MD, how often he uses the ToE in his workday. Not saying that eg, modeling micro-evolution (ie, virus adaptaions) isn't neccessary but how do you go from something like that to, 'without the ToE we'd have no hospitals.'



So I ask you,
If a devout catholic person gets struck down by lightning (the work of god) would you take them to the church or the hospital?


Honestly man (kid?) do you know a single person who wouldn't take them to the hospital? Also believers know that all of creation is a work of God, you're over-simplify our beliefs and then use that (straw man) argument to ridicule us... classy. Besides a church building has no special power... you can pray in the waiting room and He will still hear you, no worries.




You can either have a church or a hospital, which is more important

for your infant?


(skipped the rest) Sheesh man where do you live? Do you know people like this? Who exactly are you ranting about here? FWIW The "church" is the body of Christ (ie, believers) and not some building with a cross and a collection basket. I suggest you look up some of the work done in medicine (or any science... including evolution) by Christians (Catholics and all.)

It's really sad to see what the ATS O&C forum has become recently. It's a majority of backslapping, insecure, band-wagon jumping bigots. I doubt we'll see any real debates around here anytime soon. The trolls seem to be running the show around here nowadays. Yeah we get it... you're not a believer 'cause you're just too intelligent and rational to be duped by the RCC (or insert favorite nameless/faceless "controller" over the faithful here)... priceless (albeit typical.)





Understanding biology caused a creationist to write The Origin of the Species.


BTW, Darwin was a geologist not a biologist. And you may be suprised who was talking about "natural selection" before he came around. Jus' a quickie. And another short read here ... notice any ignorant Christians on that list?

Too bad you weren't around to warn people about guys like Newton, Kepler, Da Vinci, Faraday, Pasteur etc, etc, etc. ... a real shame those crazy creationists weren't stopped before they killed science and indeed humanity itself.

Of course I don't have to tell you this, right? A person so knowing and wise has surely read Darwin's 'On The Origin', right? And of course the Bible too I'm sure, yes? You wouldn't be ridiculing people from a position of ignorance on a site such as this? No, no, of course not....

It's one thing to ask an honest question or debate the facts/opinions... you've chosen to do neither and with authority no less.



Isn't it a sin to distroy life?
A surgens knife must distroy before it can heal.
So surgery is forbiden if you have faith, but hey you can go to confession for that sin.


It's "Thou Shalt Not Murder." You've made another one of those leaps of "logic" again. So the surgeon kills you before he heals you? Interesting mind you have there.

I think I've had my fill... thanks for the laughs.


God Bless You,
-Rren



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
It's one thing to ask an honest question or debate the facts/opinions... you've chosen to do neither and with authority no less.

I think I've had my fill... thanks for the laughs.


God Bless You,
-Rren


Good post Rren, almost enough to inspire me to try and post something meaningful here... almost, but not enough.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the post Rren. Very nice. I'm sorry I didn’t go into details with the points I made. If I did you might not have responded.

I never knew the whole sneeze thing started with the plague. Still why is it "god bless you"?

It is not that I'm easily offended it just that ignorance is bliss. To say Merry Christmas to anyone is also presumptuous and not much different. Yet, these days the saying has been changing to Happy Holidays so as not to offend anyone. Just a little strange how such a similar situations are handled so differently.

Actually I have a two years old son. Weird what you said because he is into both. He points out every detail in sky during the day and night. He is only two and yet he has picked out two "flying" Stars. One was an airplane but hey I'll give him a break. Thermodynamics yes! He is festinated by hot air going up. We have a small candle thing that has a fan above the candles. When the candles are lit the fan turns and that turns a little merry go round. He holds tissue paper above it and watches the paper rise. He can also do wet soldering of cooper pipe (I heat the pipe) Not hard to teach them this stuff if you approach it right. Amazing little kid. Also, I just tell him to do what’s needed, no god reference.


All the other churches, are out for the same thing. Money and power, like Dianetics or the rev, Jim Jones (but he was an over the top nut case)


You missed my whole point about the hospitals. Evolution was not just written out. It is the compilation of all the physical science in use. The science obviously came first. If any of the physical science were proven wrong that would have a serious effect on the theory. Evolution HAD to be after the information that supports it. That's the way it works. That is what I said "Without the firm understanding of biology we would not have hospitals" First fact, then hypothesis then testing. Should the testing prove correct then you have a theory. So without first having the medical knowledge and the practice you certainly can't predict how a cell will react with an antibody. But once you have all the pieces you’ll notice that your results fit perfectly with the ToE. The support and proof for the theory has to be before the theory.
Yes without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE.

Ask any doctor how their medicine conflicts with evolution, it doesn't. They don't use ToE they support it by using the same science.

Maybe if I said it this way; without scientific proof by a repeatable standard method we would not have working knowledge of medicine or ToE.

There are groups who refuse all medical treatment because of their beliefs in god. Really, is this new to you? They even put it on TV shows. Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood for example. Do I know any of these people, no, they die.

No worries? He is supposedly the one who strikes you down. You should be worried in the Hospital maybe he struck you down for not confessing your sins and it trying to get you back by striking you down. So if he is responsible for all activity wouldn't you appeal to him for striking you down in the first place?

I did NOT say that Darwin was a biologist.

I can see the problem. You are twisting my words around.

Where did I say the surgeon kills anyone????????????

The surgeons knife CUTS FLESH. This kills cells. So again
The surgeons knife must destroy before it can heal.

No logical leap there.

Honestly man, You mixed up a lot of what I wrote and got my points wrong.

The origin of the species was Christian Science.


Nice closing, touché

Live in peace
Grav


[edit on 17-5-2006 by Gravityisatheory]

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Gravityisatheory]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the post Rren. Very nice. I'm sorry I didn’t go into details with the points I made. If I did you might not have responded.

I never knew the whole sneeze thing started with the plague. Thanks for the link.

It is not that I'm easily offended it just that ignorance is bliss. To say Merry Christmas to anyone is also presumptuous and not much different. Yet, these days the saying has been changing to Happy Holidays so as not to offend anyone. Just a little strange how such a similar situations are handled so differently.

Actually I have a two years old son. Weird what you said because he is into both. He points out every detail in sky during the day and night. He is only two and yet he has picked out two "flying" Stars. One was an airplane but hey I'll give him a break. Thermodynamics yes! He is festinated by hot air going up. We have a small candle thing that has a fan above the candles. When the candles are lit the fan turns and that turns a little merry go round. He holds tissue paper above it and watches the paper rise. He can also do sweat soldering of cooper pipe (I heat the pipe) Not hard to teach them this stuff if you approach it right. Amazing little kid. Also, I just ask him to do what’s needed, No hollow threats that god is watching.

All the other churches, are out for the same thing. Money and power, like Dianetics or the rev, Jim Jones (but he was an over the top nut case). I didn't say the RCC was the only one, just the top in their field.

You missed my whole point about the hospitals. Evolution was not just written out. It is the compilation of all the physical science in use and at work. The science obviously came first. If any of the physical science were proven wrong that would have a serious effect on the theory. Evolution HAD to be after the information that supports it. That's the way it works. That is what I said "Without the firm understanding of biology we would not have hospitals" First fact, then hypothesis then testing. Should the testing prove correct then you have a theory. So without first having the medical knowledge and the practice you certainly can't predict how a cell will react with an antibody. But once you have all the pieces you’ll notice that your results fit perfectly with the ToE. The support and proof for the theory has to be before the theory.

Yes without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE. Of course they had medicine. What they didn't have was a consortium of information and standard methods of operation to achieve consistent medical success.

Ask any doctor how their medicine conflicts with evolution, it doesn't. They don't use ToE they support it by using the same science.

Maybe if I said it this way; without scientific proof by a repeatable standard method we would not have effective working knowledge of medicine or ToE. We would still have the plague, god bless you. Good for medicine good for ToE

There are groups who refuse all medical treatment because of their beliefs in god. Really, is this new to you? They even put it on TV shows. Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood for example. Do I know any of these people, no, they die.

No worries? He is supposedly the one who strikes you down. You should be worried in the Hospital maybe he struck you down for not confessing your sins and it trying to get you back by striking you down. So if he is responsible for all activity wouldn't you appeal to him for striking you down in the first place?

I did NOT say that Darwin was a biologist. Didn't mention Nat. Sel
Didn't credit him with being first

I can see the problem. You are twisting my words around to make your points

Where did I say the surgeon kills anyone????????????
The surgeons knife CUTS FLESH. This kills cells. So again
The surgeons knife must destroy before it can heal.

No logical leap there.
Honestly man, You mixed up a lot of what I wrote and got my points wrong.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Sorry about the double post. The system will not allow me to edit the first post because it hit the word limit. Each time I tried to edit it just added the note that I edited it when I didn't. It wouldn't even allow me to delete.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I know this wasn't directed to me but....


Originally posted by Gravityisatheory, order modified by mattison0922
Yes without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE. Of course they had medicine. What they didn't have was a consortium of information and standard methods of operation to achieve consistent medical success.

This statement is absurd. Hospitals were in existence long before ToE. Let's completely discount the 'hospitals' used by ancient egyptians, muslims, early persians, etc. for the sake of this argument, and heck, even those associated with monestaries, etc.

A wealthy merchant named Thomas Guy founded Guy hospital in London in 1724.

Hmmm... you might want to check the dates for Darwin's Beagle voyage.

William Penn started Penn Hospital in Philly even earlier than that...

Furthermore, peer reviewed medical journals have been around for longer than ToE, NEJM was started in like 1810 or something. Standard methods of operation have nothing to do with ToE.



You missed my whole point about the hospitals. Evolution was not just written out. It is the compilation of all the physical science in use and at work. The science obviously came first. If any of the physical science were proven wrong that would have a serious effect on the theory.

This is just wrong. If rabbit fossils were found in PreCambrian rock tomorrow, do you know what the effect would be on ToE and Common Descent... Utter devastation. What would happen to the field of medicine? Nothing. Drug discovery, pathology, surgeries, 'standard methods of operation' would all continue just as they have before.


So without first having the medical knowledge and the practice you certainly can't predict how a cell will react with an antibody. But once you have all the pieces you’ll notice that your results fit perfectly with the ToE. The support and proof for the theory has to be before the theory.

What do cell/antibody interactions have to do with ToE? The way a cell and antibody interact tells you nothing about common descent. Given that antibodies are the products of directed hypermutation what does this have to do with ToE or common descent?

Please elaborate on how cell/antibody interactions offer support and proof for ToE. Sounds like a lot of tossing around of words you don't really understand.



Ask any doctor how their medicine conflicts with evolution, it doesn't. They don't use ToE they support it by using the same science.
Whether or not medicine conflicts with ToE isn't relevant. It's whether or not medicine requires ToE, and it doesn't. Doctors don't 'support' ToE, unless you're talking about fake Doctors, ie: Ph.D.'s. Medical doctors don't or at least very rarely offer evidence in support of ToE. For the most part, they're visiting a couple of hundred patients a day, and have little time for thinking about Darwin.


Maybe if I said it this way; without scientific proof by a repeatable standard method we would not have effective working knowledge of medicine or ToE. We would still have the plague, god bless you. Good for medicine good for ToE

Ummm... we do still have the plague. Interestingly enough, plagues happened before the introduction of modern medicines and the ToE. How did people in plague affected societies beat this disease with ToE? Oh yeah... via better sanitation and hygeine... not the theory of Common Descent.

ToE is an origins science, and doesn't lend itself to 'proof' as a scientist traditionally uses the term. This is one of the main reasons evolution was labeled a 'pseudoscience' when it was first introduced as a cohesive theory.


There are groups who refuse all medical treatment because of their beliefs in god. Really, is this new to you? They even put it on TV shows. Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood for example. Do I know any of these people, no, they die.

And this offers proof of evolution how?

While I don't know any Christian Scientists... their members that happen to be among the living include Val Kilmer, Robert Duvall, Bruce Hornsby, and Mike Nesmith.


No worries? He is supposedly the one who strikes you down. You should be worried in the Hospital maybe he struck you down for not confessing your sins and it trying to get you back by striking you down. So if he is responsible for all activity wouldn't you appeal to him for striking you down in the first place?

Not even sure if I can extract any meaning from this... Rren?



The surgeons knife CUTS FLESH. This kills cells. So again
The surgeons knife must destroy before it can heal.

This sounds like something I heard in Sid & Nancy...


Honestly man, You mixed up a lot of what I wrote and got my points wrong.

Well..... don't hold it against him... it looks like you're confused re: a number of issues yourself.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Standard methods of operation have nothing to do with ToE.

Really, You must have failed every science class you ever had!'
'

To show ToE you need empirical science. To have effective science you need a standard method of operation or a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in this case it is called the scientific method. en.wikipedia.org...

If your method of medical DNA or RNA testing determines that a rabbit fossil is actually an elephant and another guy performs a DNA test and finds that it is a worm. Then one would conclude that one or both test methods were screwed up. If you had a standard method of extracting and testing, then the DNA would not be contaminated and everyone performing the same tests using the same SOP’s, would get the same result of a rabbit. Repeatable independent results are the cornerstone of good science and thus good medicine.

The same goes for radiometric dating. If one person tries to Carbon 14 date say a coke bottle and another dates a pre-Cambrian rabbit and they both get the same results. That would be pretty amazing since you would have to be an idiot to try to Carbon 14 date a coke bottle or anything over 50,000 years old in the first place. If you had a standard procedure for qualifying articles for specific dating methods you would not use Carbon 14 to date either object because other wise the results would be worthless or purposely misused.

Unless you use standard methods of operation (scientific method) all your test results would be worthless. There would not be any ToE because nothing would relate and there would be no such thing as a proof. Also, we would not have hospitals, as any medical treatment would be seen as an indication that the human species has gained the knowledge to adapt to their environment. Hospitals are a Mecca example of our biological knowledge and skills, which have been honed since the first idea of biological evolution began in ancient times.



Originally posted by mattison0922
It's whether or not medicine requires ToE, and it doesn't.


No, it's not that simple. You misunderstood my point. The issue is the both ToE and Medicine are the result of biology. Without the understanding of biology we never would have developed either. The validity of one validates the other. ToE is equivalent to a numerous collection of theories of biology/biomedical science. That is what I meant.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Doctors don't 'support' ToE


Of course they don’t, as you see it. I didn’t say that doctors supported ToE directly as your re-writing indicates. I was implying that their use of medicine supports it. I wasn’t trying to show that they directly lend any ‘support’ to the theory. Only that they validate the methodology (practical application of the biological sciences) which also gives us ToE.

When people provide evidence for the process (or "fact") of evolution, they are supporting the idea that evolution occurs at all; when they provide evidence for a certain theory of evolution, however, they are supporting a given theory as the best explanation yet as to why and how the process of evolution occurs.
en.wikipedia.org...

Have you ever received antibiotics from a Doctor? Do you think that doctor understands how this medical treatment works and how it was developed? I hope so.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922


Originally posted by Gravityisatheory, order modified by mattison0922
Yes without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE. Of course they had medicine. What they didn't have was a consortium of information and standard methods of operation to achieve consistent medical success.

This statement is absurd. Hospitals were in existence long before ToE. Let's completely discount the 'hospitals' used by ancient egyptians, muslims, early persians, etc. for the sake of this argument, and heck, even those associated with monestaries, etc.


Interesting.
The ToE does not exist just because someone gave it that title. Whether or not you realize it or not the evolutionary basis can be seen as just another branch of biology with support from the other physical sciences. Before it was given a narrower span it was simply just another part of the biological theory. We have put that knowledge to use to develop two major sections of biological theories.

First – Historic Biology, The idea of evolution from ancient times. This most likely started with herding animals, over 10,000 years ago. By simple observation they could see what things could improve their animal food supply. Inadvertently the practice of breeding would have been around long before someone gave it that name. www.naturalhistorymag.com...://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0203/0203_feature.html

Secondly- Present & Future Biology, Medicine exemplified as Hospitals. Whether or not we actually developed hospitals the ToE would still exist and medical practice would still exist. As they are both the same science one is past biology the other is present & future biology. The general purpose of a hospital is to combine the available medical knowledge and resources to predict (theorize) and try a cure/path forward (practice medicine).

Part of ToE says that organisms adapt to their environment. Unless you learn about your environment you will not adapt to it. Since we are not born with medical knowledge this must be learned and developed. This body of medical knowledge is part of our current adaptation to this environment. We have the knowledge to survive and overcome some serious threats from our environment. Thus, hospitals are part of ToE.


I didn’t mean that doctors or hospitals prove evolution. The first part of the sentence is purposely worded to evoke a response from those who are to lazy to read the whole idea of the sentence.

“Without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE”


The key to this is “…because the science that gives us hospitals is the same science that supports evolution.”

The ToE does not exist because of Darwin or Aristotle. It does not exist because of Ancient Egyptian Medicine. It does not exist because of hospitals. It does not exist because of any specific science or any specific person. It exists because it is a coherent use of all of the sciences, which includes all Christian medicine and medieval medicine it requires the understanding of biology. The premises is that the entire body of knowledge is accumulative for both ToE and Medicine/Hospitals, biology. Knowledge of which is needed in pretty much all legally practiced medicine.

In order to prove common decent you are going to need a little understanding of biology. What we know of biology is the result of thousands of years of documents and records explaining ‘medical’ (torturous as well) practices. Good or bad these documents gave us this knowledge of just about every living creature that man has come across. This allows us to study things like rabbits. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid. Perhaps you are familiar with this. Where did you learn about DNA? School right? I’m guessing it was not med school. In order to show common decent can you guess what little bit of information is very useful? DNA, well that is just a little more biology. en.wikipedia.org...

The Egyptians have been credited with being the first to administer “cures” for people. Their methods have been studied and we keep the knowledge and play it forward. From what they did wrong we did not try. From what they did right we tried to repeat. This also goes for Chinese medicine, which I believe, predates the Egyptian empire but doesn’t matter. From the time that man first found the boiled bark of the willow tree to have beneficial effects right up to our vaccines man has accumulated the medical knowledge from every facet of life. www.amc.uva.nl...

We use archeology to find fossils showing some amazing things. Where the fossils lie gives us a certain time line into history. We geology we can analyze the accuracy of the position of those fossils and draw conclusions about the global events taking place at the time of the fossil deposition. Things like smoke, silt, mineral deposits or fallout can be analyzed and along with the fossils still further conclusions can be drawn. Then by looking closely at the fossil we can see maybe just bones. Or maybe there is some petrified flesh or bone. With forensic anthropology we can determine things like age, sex, relative size, or cause of death or maybe even show some medical treatment. Now if this fossil or petrified sample showed medical treatment such as an indication that a bone repair was done we could conclude that this particular sample was exposed to medical knowledge. By looking closely at the sample we can determine how the repair could have been made of if it was accidental. With our current medical knowledge and our knowledge of what medical information became available when and where we can determine how this sample was treated and possibly determine what body of medicine or what event contributed to this repair. Amazing, how did that happen? Perhaps this medical group used some type of preparation to add this injury or surgery or whatever medical treatment could have possibly been used. The knowledge of chemistry and botany could be useful. Finding things like white poppy seeds, coconuts, proplis and honey, or maybe some strange mushroom or tea preparation. With our collection of medical knowledge we can either re-enforce what we already know or we might find a new cure or new medicine new use for existing preparations. Blah, blah, blah.

I hope you are getting my drift by now. I can sight an endless amount of sciences and disciplines from which we draw our medical knowledge. How do we know that our biology/medical knowledge is right? We test it again and again. We use standard methods and repeatable tests. We practice over and over again. We use all of that knowledge in today’s hospitals in doctor’s “practices”.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Please elaborate on how cell/antibody interactions offer support and proof for ToE. Sounds like a lot of tossing around of words you don't really understand.


It is because people don’t the understand science that they think ToE is pseudoscience.

en.wikipedia.org...
Antibodies are used in biological staining. Specifically Immunohistochemical staining.
The antibody is used to detect specific proteins within a tissue sample.
en.wikipedia.org...
This tissue sampling and protein detection is primarily used in pathology.
en.wikipedia.org...
Pathology is the scientific study of nature, primarily diseases and forensic science. If you are doing any work with human tissue you are going to need a pathologist. Pathologists Apply Modern Tools To Study of Ancient Disease Patterns.
topics.nytimes.com...





Originally posted by mattison0922
ToE is an origins science, and doesn't lend itself to 'proof' as a scientist traditionally uses the term. This is one of the main reasons evolution was labeled a 'pseudoscience' when it was first introduced as a cohesive theory.


ToE explains the change of life NOT the origin. That is Abiogenesis. Another form of biology considered being outside the framework of ToE.

ToE can’t lend itself to ‘proof’. That is putting the cart in front of the horse. It is the facts that support the hypotheses that are ‘proven’ correct to make the many theories that compose the body of knowledge collectively known as ToE.

A scientist will traditionally use a standard method to arrive at a ‘proof’. They would not attempt to use a theory as ‘proof’ that’s like using smoke to prove fire.

lifesciences.asu.edu...


Originally posted by mattison0922
“Ummm... we do still have the plague.”


The plague is a very general term but within the context that it was intended it was the fatal Black Plague. Sorry that wasn’t made clear. When they didn’t know what caused it or how to treat it, it was given the name the Black Plague because of its visible symptoms. Luckily the black plague died out as it indicates here on Wiki. en.wikipedia.org...
Once the medical knowledge caught up, the Black Plague was identified and all current forms of it are known as the Bubonic Plague, Yersinia pestis. Modern antibiotics are effective against the Bubonic Plague. Antibiotics such as; Streptomycin, Chloramphenicol, Tetracycline, Gentamicin, Doxycycline. This medical knowledge allows us to survive such an affliction and basically adapt to our environment. It also helps to understand what may have wiped out prehistoric man.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Mattison, I’m sorry you misunderstood what I was saying. Your clarifications changed the meaning of what I said and then you refuted the new claim. It is this type conjecture, which creates the pseudoscience concepts in the first place. A few things were responses to Rren without quoting.


Originally posted by mattison0992

Originally posted by GravityisatheoryThere are groups who refuse all medical treatment because of their beliefs in god. Really, is this new to you? They even put it on TV shows. Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood for example. Do I know any of these people, no, they die.


And this offers proof of evolution how?

While I don't know any Christian Scientists... their members that happen to be among the living include Val Kilmer, Robert Duvall, Bruce Hornsby, and Mike Nesmith.

(The quote you sighted was a response.)

Proof of evolution? What? Why would you conclude that I was trying to “prove” evolution. ToE is a theory, something that is not proven but supported by proof. There is a difference.

The existence of hospital proves that our current biological knowledge is correct and accurate. We use it to make medical/biological predictions about both the past (ToE) and the future (Medical practices and biology). So we know that the biological part of the ToE is also correct and accurate. To say that the ToE is wrong is like saying that all biology is wrong but, it can’t be, we have hospitals proving the science right.
Biology was the cause of both.

So, are you saying that Christian Scientists are the equivalent of Faith Healers?
en.wikipedia.org...

I was not aware that Christian Scientists “…refuse all medical treatment..”. I can’t believe that Val Kilmer, Robert Duvall, Bruce Hornsby, and Mike Nesmith refuse all forms of medical treatment. Andy Kauffman tried Faith Healing to cure his cancer it didn’t work. He then tried Psychic surgery, he’s dead.
A practice that may have been first documented by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...

For this god they built a temple to worship and pray for healing. Faith healers hospital/church?
Which is pretty much where this thought started before you chimed in. Zeus is one the Greek mythological figures believed to have the ability to strike people down with lightning. Since the belief in the God of Moses has become dominate this ability to strike one down has been perceived to now be his. So, if a faith healer were to be struck down by lightning. Wouldn’t this be seen as an act of god? That’s what the insurance company would list as the cause of death but would a faith healer even have insurance? Hum.
Why would you go to the hospital you can’t get away from an omnipotent presence?
He got ya the first time, he’ll get ya again.
Wouldn’t it be logical to appeal to the tyrant, oh, I mean god?


Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
The surgeons knife CUTS FLESH. This kills cells. So again
The surgeons knife must destroy before it can heal.


This is an extreme example of number 6, Thou shall not kill. Despite gods speculated incredible power his instructions were curt, as the tablets did not elaborate. So if it is wrong to kill, some people might be pro-life. They believe that a single cell is life as soon as it is conceived. Well, then if a single cell is enough for the pro-life group to stop procedures (and even kill doctors) in the name of god, sighting #6, what about thousands of cells slain by a knife to remove a cancer created by god? Isn’t it believed that he created cancer for some (sick) reason? He placed it in the body to make those suffer for their sins knowing that it can’t be removed because cutting into the body that was created in his image would be an additional sin.

Originally posted by mattison0992
... it looks like you're confused re: a number of issues yourself.


Yeah, no kidding. I was raised Roman Catholic.

Thank you for playing.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Really, You must have failed every science class you ever had!'
'




To show ToE you need empirical science. To have effective science you need a standard method of operation or a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in this case it is called the scientific method. en.wikipedia.org...
Your statement: "What they didn't have was a consortium of information and standard methods of operation to achieve consistent medical success."
Seems to imply that ToE provided hospitals with Standard Methods of Operation, it doesn't.


If your method of medical DNA or RNA testing determines that a rabbit fossil is actually an elephant and another guy performs a DNA test and finds that it is a worm.

And you Said I must have failed every science class


Of the hundreds of thousands of fossils found, how many have ever had tissue adequate for performind nucleic acid analysis... like maybe two. Fossil identification isn't now, and hasn't ever been dependent on Nucleic Acid Identification.


Then one would conclude that one or both test methods were screwed up. If you had a standard method of extracting and testing, then the DNA would not be contaminated and everyone performing the same tests using the same SOP’s, would get the same result of a rabbit. Repeatable independent results are the cornerstone of good science and thus good medicine.

Okay, but ToE still isn't responsible for creating the scientific method, which is where your posts seem to be headed.



Unless you use standard methods of operation (scientific method) all your test results would be worthless. There would not be any ToE because nothing would relate and there would be no such thing as a proof. Also, we would not have hospitals, as any medical treatment would be seen as an indication that the human species has gained the knowledge to adapt to their environment. Hospitals are a Mecca example of our biological knowledge and skills, which have been honed since the first idea of biological evolution began in ancient times.

So... ToE didn't create the scientific method. This point is irrelevant. ToE doesn't have to exist, and the scientific method and hospitals still can.



Originally posted by mattison0922
No, it's not that simple. You misunderstood my point. The issue is the both ToE and Medicine are the result of biology. Without the understanding of biology we never would have developed either. The validity of one validates the other. ToE is equivalent to a numerous collection of theories of biology/biomedical science. That is what I meant.

The validity of biology does not validate the validity of ToE. What about LaMarckism, that arose out of biology, is this valid? So basically you're saying if something arose from the field of biology it automatically valid. Ridiculous. Duesbergs' theories arose from biology, and no one believes them. Are Duesberg's theories re: HIV valid simply because he's a biochemist. Of course not.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Doctors don't 'support' ToE

Of course they don’t, as you see it. I didn’t say that doctors supported ToE directly as your re-writing indicates. I was implying that their use of medicine supports it. I wasn’t trying to show that they directly lend any ‘support’ to the theory. Only that they validate the methodology (practical application of the biological sciences) which also gives us ToE.
Okay then, the use of medicine doesn't support it either.



Have you ever received antibiotics from a Doctor? Do you think that doctor understands how this medical treatment works and how it was developed? I hope so.
en.wikipedia.org...

So.... antibiotics didn't and still don't come from ToE. They come from other fields entirely.

BTW, no my Doctor's usually don't understand antibiotics any where near as well as I do. Most don't even know what system the drug targets.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
It is because people don’t the understand science that they think ToE is pseudoscience.

en.wikipedia.org...
Antibodies are used in biological staining. Specifically Immunohistochemical staining.
The antibody is used to detect specific proteins within a tissue sample.
en.wikipedia.org...
This tissue sampling and protein detection is primarily used in pathology.
en.wikipedia.org...
Pathology is the scientific study of nature, primarily diseases and forensic science. If you are doing any work with human tissue you are going to need a pathologist. Pathologists Apply Modern Tools To Study of Ancient Disease Patterns.
topics.nytimes.com...

Ummm... yeah. Thanks for the Bio101 lesson. I asked how antibody cell interactions provide evidence for ToE. This is just a lot of handwaving, and DOESN'T answer the question I asked.

One more time: How do Antibody/cell interactions provide evidence for ToE?


Originally posted by mattison0922
ToE is an origins science, and doesn't lend itself to 'proof' as a scientist traditionally uses the term. This is one of the main reasons evolution was labeled a 'pseudoscience' when it was first introduced as a cohesive theory.



ToE explains the change of life NOT the origin. That is Abiogenesis. Another form of biology considered being outside the framework of ToE.

ToE IS an Origins theory. Perhaps you've heard of the title of Darwin's most famous work, commonly referred to as the Origin.


ToE can’t lend itself to ‘proof’. That is putting the cart in front of the horse. It is the facts that support the hypotheses that are ‘proven’ correct to make the many theories that compose the body of knowledge collectively known as ToE.

ToE is a collection of inferences based on facts. It's NOT provable by the scientific method. Predictions can support it or not, but NO origins theory, including ToE, can be proven. You can't prove man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. You can find evidence that supports the idea, but you can't prove it... at least not without a time machine. Such is the nature of ALL Origins sciences.



lifesciences.asu.edu...

Ironic that you chose THIS link.



Originally posted by mattison0922
“Ummm... we do still have the plague.”



The plague is a very general term but within the context that it was intended it was the fatal Black Plague. Sorry that wasn’t made clear. When they didn’t know what caused it or how to treat it, it was given the name the Black Plague because of its visible symptoms. Luckily the black plague died out as it indicates here on Wiki. en.wikipedia.org...
Once the medical knowledge caught up, the Black Plague was identified and all current forms of it are known as the Bubonic Plague, Yersinia pestis. Modern antibiotics are effective against the Bubonic Plague. Antibiotics such as; Streptomycin, Chloramphenicol, Tetracycline, Gentamicin, Doxycycline. This medical knowledge allows us to survive such an affliction and basically adapt to our environment. It also helps to understand what may have wiped out prehistoric man.

Well, thanks again for the history 101, lesson, but we do still have the plague. Not too many people die of it, but it's not as if Yersinia Pestis was wiped out. Furthermore, you've missed the point. The plague didn't 'disappear' due to antibiotics, it either burns itself out, or improvements in sanitation and hygiene improve. Neither antibiotics nor ToE stopped the plague.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Mattison, I’m sorry you misunderstood what I was saying. Your clarifications changed the meaning of what I said and then you refuted the new claim. It is this type conjecture, which creates the pseudoscience concepts in the first place. A few things were responses to Rren without quoting.

I don't think I misunderstood you, and I quoted you directly. I didn't 'clarify' anything. How does quoting you directly and in full change the meaning of what you said?



The existence of hospital proves that our current biological knowledge is correct and accurate.

It proves nothing of the sort. What do the large number of people who die in hospitals from nosocomial infections every prove about our understanding of Biology? The proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals, surgical instruments left behind in patients, etc. What does all this say about 'biological knowledge?' What about the thousands of people who die from incurable diseases in hospitals? What do they say about our understanding of biological knowledge? What about incurable necrotizing faceitis, what does that prove about our understanding of biological knowledge?


We use it to make medical/biological predictions about both the past (ToE) and the future (Medical practices and biology).

Describe three things that ToE has contributed to medicine?


So we know that the biological part of the ToE is also correct and accurate. To say that the ToE is wrong is like saying that all biology is wrong but, it can’t be, we have hospitals proving the science right.
Biology was the cause of both.

Biology was not the cause of hospitals. Biology as a discipline didn't even exist until the 18th or 19th century. AFTER the first hospitals appeared. In fact you could say that biology arose because of hospitals, not the other way around. Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday. Species are reclassified, mechanisms are clarified or otherwise rewritten, etc. Biology, like all science is dynamic and subject to falsification. Because certain aspects of biology appear to be correct, doesn't make all biological theories correct. It's like evaluating an exam based on a single question: This question is answered correctly, therefore the others must be too. This is a serious logical fallacy.


So, are you saying that Christian Scientists are the equivalent of Faith Healer?
en.wikipedia.org...

Nope



I was not aware that Christian Scientists “…refuse all medical treatment..”. I can’t believe that Val Kilmer, Robert Duvall, Bruce Hornsby, and Mike Nesmith refuse all forms of medical treatment. Andy Kauffman tried Faith Healing to cure his cancer it didn’t work. He then tried Psychic surgery, he’s dead.
A practice that may have been first documented by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...

You don't have to believe it. I don't know what the personal beliefs of any of these individuals are, but I do know they are listed on the Web (not that the web is necessarily a reliable source of info), as being 'Christian Scientists.' What's the basis for your inability to believe these people would refuse medical treatment?


For this god they built a temple to worship and pray for healing. Faith healers hospital/church?
Which is pretty much where this thought started before you chimed in. Zeus is one the Greek mythological figures believed to have the ability to strike people down with lightning. Since the belief in the God of Moses has become dominate this ability to strike one down has been perceived to now be his. So, if a faith healer were to be struck down by lightning. Wouldn’t this be seen as an act of god? That’s what the insurance company would list as the cause of death but would a faith healer even have insurance? Hum.
Why would you go to the hospital you can’t get away from an omnipotent presence?
He got ya the first time, he’ll get ya again.
Wouldn’t it be logical to appeal to the tyrant, oh, I mean god?

This isn't my area of expertise, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about questions such as this. It's pseudotheological.



This is an extreme example of number 6, Thou shall not kill. Despite gods speculated incredible power his instructions were curt, as the tablets did not elaborate. So if it is wrong to kill, some people might be pro-life. They believe that a single cell is life as soon as it is conceived. Well, then if a single cell is enough for the pro-life group to stop procedures (and even kill doctors) in the name of god, sighting #6, what about thousands of cells slain by a knife to remove a cancer created by god? Isn’t it believed that he created cancer for some (sick) reason? He placed it in the body to make those suffer for their sins knowing that it can’t be removed because cutting into the body that was created in his image would be an additional sin.

I can't respond to this either.



Yeah, no kidding. I was raised Roman Catholic.

Ummm... me too. Soooo.....



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I was tempted to jump on this thread to try to straighten our enlightened thread originator out a little, but I see he has two willing tutors already engaged. You would do well to listen carefully.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0992
I don't think I misunderstood you, and I quoted you directly. I didn't 'clarify' anything. How does quoting you directly and in full change the meaning of what you said?


Example 1: Changing the meaning by clarifying.


Originally posted by mattison0992
quote: Ask any doctor how their medicine conflicts with evolution, it doesn't. They don't use ToE they support it by using the same science.
Whether or not medicine conflicts with ToE isn't relevant. It's whether or not medicine requires ToE, and it doesn't. Doctors don't 'support' ToE,


I said “…how their medicine conflicts with evolution…”
You said “…whether or not medicine conflicts with ToE…”

I did not say “require” that is also your change.

This is extremely different. So, I gave you the Wiki reference to evolution, which had the following:
“When people provide evidence for the process (or "fact") of evolution, they are supporting the idea that evolution occurs at all; when they provide evidence for a certain theory of evolution, however, they are supporting a given theory as the best explanation yet as to why and how the process of evolution occurs.”

Doctors use antibiotics, which combat bacterial infections. The observable evolution of bacteria is a fact. Doctors are fully aware of this. The facts of this can be found at “the answers in genesis” site. Considering their position on creation they do a fantastic job of explaining the fact of evolution. It is this fact that doctors understand and continuously provide evidence for in their practice. So as in the Wiki quote above they are supporting the idea that evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs supports the ToE.

Example 2: Changing the subject by clarifying.


Originally posted by mattison0992
quote: I was not aware that Christian Scientists “…refuse all medical treatment..”. I can’t believe that Val Kilmer, Robert Duvall, Bruce Hornsby, and Mike Nesmith refuse all forms of medical treatment. Andy Kauffman tried Faith Healing to cure his cancer it didn’t work. He then tried Psychic surgery, he’s dead.
A practice that may have been first documented by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...

You don't have to believe it. I don't know what the personal beliefs of any of these individuals are, but I do know they are listed on the Web (not that the web is necessarily a reliable source of info), as being 'Christian Scientists.' What's the basis for your inability to believe these people would refuse medical treatment?


The basis is that they are not faith healers.
This subject started by my saying there are groups who “refuse all medical treatment” and you made the inference that this is the same as Christian Scientists. This became a whole new point to refute because we both know that this is not intension of the Christian Science faith. “…followers are free to choose to seek traditional medical treatment…” I re-quoted the portion in the above quote to make it clear that it was that distinction “refuse all medical treatment” which should have made it clear that I was talking about faith healers not Christian Scientists. The people you listed are not faith healers. They do not refuse ALL medical treatment. In as much as I also don’t know these people, these people are famous and if they really were to refuse all medical treatment (as faith healers) the news media would exploit such information. As they have done with the example I gave you, Andy Kauffman.

Additionally;
Robert Duvall received treatment after falling from a horse while training for the movie Open Range. Val Kilmer has provided medical aid to third world countries’. I’m just guessing that he practices what he preaches so he also is excepting of basic medical treatment.

Example 3 Changing the meaning by clarifying.


Originally posted by mattison0992
Yes without evolution we would not have hospitals because the science that gives us hospital is the same science that gives us ToE. Of course they had medicine. What they didn't have was a consortium of information and standard methods of operation to achieve consistent medical success.

This statement is absurd. Hospitals were in existence long before ToE.


I said “without evolution” not “without ToE”
I didn’t say which came first because that is irrelevant.
This is actually adding additional points to clarify.
The first hospitals by definition would have been the temples of Asclepius 300BC.
Initially, the ToE was called the biological theory. Now a portion of that theory became ToE, same theory new name.
It was first the biological theory and botany has since been split off as a discipline of biology.

Biology itself is not a discipline it is a very broad category of science. From Dictionary.com;
Biology is; “The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.”

Botany: The science or study of plants.

Botany/Medicine 60k BC en.wikipedia.org...

Which means that botany began before 60k years ago. IE so did biology and its theories. Those biological theories, all of them starting from the first “Prehistoric” man discovering and passing the knowledge on up to what ever time it is now fit together in a cohesive grouping that someone in the current mellennium is credited with calling The Theory of Evolution. The biolgical theories of evolution were always there. Since it is not an exact science when used in medicine it is a practice. Medical treatments are not universally effective. The efficacy of treatments varries according to the predispostion of the individual taking the treatment. All treatments are predicted to work, there are no gaurantees, that is also part of the ToE.
Additional support;
From 8000BC www.schoolscience.co.uk...
From the Vatican;
www.ibiblio.org...
History of medicine www.schoolscience.co.uk...


Originally posted by mattison0992
quote: The existence of hospital proves that our current biological knowledge is correct and accurate.

It proves nothing of the sort. What do the large number of people who die in hospitals from nosocomial infections every prove about our understanding of Biology?


What do you think it to proves? You think hospitals would exist if they used incorrect and inaccurate methods? How does anyone identify a nosocomial infection? That would require the understanding of a discipline in biology. How do you treat such an infection? Without proven medication you wouldn’t know where to begin treatment. But since we have many years experience in treating such an affliction we have developed antibiotics from ancient practices and medicines through the historically accumulative biological knowledge. If our biology (broad term covering thousands of disciplines) was wrong we would not have such abilities to provide a cure. Out of the endless amounts of antibiotics only a few are appropriate to address the problem. Choosing the most appropriate antibiotic requires correct biological knowledge of the interaction of the antibiotic in association with the particular persons antibiotic history. Other wise they are only guessing. When they die it does not in anyway discredit the known effective treatments. The deaths are an indication that these people had weakened systems or that the infection/bacteria has evolved into a more resistant strain or yet some unknown. It may show that these people had been exposed to something that weakened their system. Or perhaps they have a common genetic defect. Without the biological knowledge the cause of death would be totally speculatory. The fact is that hospitals go through many biological procedures on a daily basis. They use proven methods of biology to identify and treat. Death is part of the ToE and death while in medical care just indicates there are things we do not know.


Originally posted by mattison0992
The proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals,

This is proof of evolution


Originally posted by mattison0992
surgical instruments left behind in patients

This is an indication that incompetent and irresponsible doctors still pass med school to become licensed doctors. This has no effect on; evolution, ToE, biology, or our medical abilities.


Originally posted by mattison0992
What does all this say about 'biological knowledge?

It says that we are still learning, it doesn’t subtract from what we already know as right.


Originally posted by mattison0992
' What about the thousands of people who die from incurable diseases in hospitals

It might say that these people have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in their drinking water. It might alert you to the fact that human hormone disrupter medications that were rejected by the FDA are currently used as platisizers in standard plastic food packages. These hormone/plastisizers are fat-soluble. Without the accurate biological knowledge to test peoples blood for chemical contamination you wouldn’t know how prevent additional people from getting the same thing. With out correct biological knowledge we wouldn’t know what causes or encourages incurable necrotizing faceitis. Without empirical knowledge of bacteria no one would even know that it is not a mystical affliction?


Originally posted by mattison0992
what does that prove about our understanding of biological knowledge?

It proves our understanding that bacteria evolve; it proves our understanding of evolution. It supports ToE, which in part says that no organism can live forever, until we learn otherwise. Pretty difficult to prove so it will always be a theory.


Originally posted by mattison0992
quote: We use it to make medical/biological predictions about both the past (ToE) and the future (Medical practices and biology).

Describe three things that ToE has contributed to medicine?

This is proof you don’t understand the difference between evolution and ToE.

It also indicates that you missed understood the quote you used.

This is an incorrect use of the term ToE. Theories do not directly contribute anything they make predictions as it says in the quote.
But to address the intent
Describe three (3) things the evolution has contributed to medicine?

1) Genomics, en.wikipedia.org...
2) Antibiotics to treat bacteria. This was learned from ancient use of molds and Propolis.
3) Identification of inherited chromosomal translocations for human disease (incl. Cancer) research www.bio-itworld.com...
4) How about a whole site of contributions. evolution.berkeley.edu...
5) www.nmnh.si.edu...
6) Even drugs; Digitalis, morphine, quinine, and ephedrine are all modern medicines that have been passed down to us from prehistoric signature practice. Environmental adaptation.

Alternatively
Describe three (3) things that biology has contributed to; evolution, ToE, and medicine.

· The understanding of DNA en.wikipedia.org...
· The understanding of genetics en.wikipedia.org...
· The understanding of cellular variation
· www.talkorigins.org...
·

Originally posted by mattison0992
Biology as a discipline didn't even exist until the 18th or 19th century. AFTER the first hospitals appeared. In fact you could say that biology arose because of hospitals, not the other way around. Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday. Species are reclassified, mechanisms are clarified or otherwise rewritten, etc. Biology, like all science is dynamic and subject to falsification. Because certain aspects of biology appear to be correct, doesn't make all biological theories correct. It's like evaluating an exam based on a single question: This question is answered correctly, therefore the others must be too. This is a serious logical fallacy.

Biology is not a discipline it is an enormous category of life science. Microbiology would be a discipline of biology.


Originally posted by mattison0992
In fact you could say that biology arose because of hospitals

You can say that but it’s clearly wrong.



Originally posted by mattison0992
Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday.

Really, humor me name one. Considering the enormously broad range of disciplines within biology find one thing that has been found as absolutely wrong after passing a peer reviewed study.


Originally posted by mattison0992
Species are reclassified, mechanisms are clarified or otherwise rewritten, etc. Biology, like all science is dynamic and subject to falsification.

Yes, this is a good point. That is why they are the biological theory and medical practice and evolutionary theory, instead of biological fact and medical utopia/perfection and how it happened, nothings perfect. But reclassification and or clarifications don’t disrupt any theories it adds to them as that is the intent of a theory in the first place. A theory is an attempt to understand and/or explain with the best knowledge currently known. So as we learn more we clarify the past. Shows that our current biological knowledge going forward teaches us about the past, about evolution and the ToE.

Falsification is very difficult. No one can simply publish a paper or book and make it part of an existing theory. All ideas go through a rigorous peer review process before any merit can be given to new concepts. It is then opened to the whole world for comment before there is any acceptance in any field of science. There are hundreds of thousands of independent studies and peer reviews globally that would win a noble prize to prove any validated theory wrong.

The ToE is made of correct disciplines and theories of biology. Many of those disciplines and theories are also used in medicine. If an error is made within any one of those disciplines it does not go up the ladder to disrupt the discipline itself and certainly not up to any grouping of those disciplines like ToE or Medicine


Originally posted by mattison0992
Because certain aspects of biology appear to be correct, doesn't make all biological theories correct. It's like evaluating an exam based on a single question: This question is answered correctly, therefore the others must be too. This is a serious logical fallacy.

Yes you are right that could be a serious logical fallacy. That is why numerous science and engineering exams give you a series of questions where correct answers are required in order to answer the one final question. As such all you have to do is explain your final answer and you get an “A”. This eliminates the instructors need to review to work of students who don’t need to be tested in the first place. Anyway, biological theories are intertwined. One supports the other. Modification of one typically requires modification of another. It is dynamic as you said. But, the emergence of necrotizing faceitis does not show any theory wrong or any science wrong or any doctor wrong. People dying in hospitals also does not diminish the quality of our biological knowledge. That would be like failing an exam based on scoring the one and only incorrect question.

But this is not the point I am making. We know what “certain aspects” of the biological theories are correct (an be it known that this comprises an enormous number theories within an enormous number of biological disciplines) and our repeated successful use of many of them in medicine re-enforces that. The ToE uses the majority of those exact same “certain aspects” of the same biological theories, which are correct and repeatedly used in medicine. The majority of ToE is made of those very same “certain aspects”.
So, to say the ToE is wrong would be like saying that all the “certain aspects” that it is made of are wrong. But those “certain aspects” are also used in medicine. To your point if any one of the “certain aspects” is wrong that does not make any of the other “certain aspects” wrong that is why the overall theory is not affected. But if the overall theory is wrong then, it is because the majority of it’s sub theories were wrong.


Originally posted by mattison0992
This isn't my area of expertise, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about questions such as this. It's pseudotheological.

Interesting really, you already addressed this subject; this is part of the faith healer topic to which you added Christian Scientists. This was a response to the original reference to the Greek god Asclepius. Part of modern medicines universal symbol for emergency treatment. Also, there is a connection to the Hippocratic oath a multi-theistic oath. Modern medicine really gives credit to the most abundant surviving source of medical information, Greek biological documentation. There is irony in the “Star of Life”.


Originally posted by mattison0992
“I can't respond to this either.”

An Oxymoron
You felt compelled to quote my post and respond to it with “I can't respond to this either.”



Originally posted by mattison0992
Ummm... me too. Soooo.....

Blind faith overshadows simple understanding.:p



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Doctors use antibiotics, which combat bacterial infections. The observable evolution of bacteria is a fact. Doctors are fully aware of this.

This just demonstrates that you know pretty much next to nothing about antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance doesn't 'evolve.' Antibiotic resistance is a trait present in the population... it was present in the population BEFORE the purification and commercialization of antibiotics as medicines. That is antibiotic resistance has always been present, and the use of antibiotics only shuffles and changes the ratios of PRE-EXISTING alleles.


The facts of this can be found at “the answers in genesis” site. Considering their position on creation they do a fantastic job of explaining the fact of evolution.

Hmmm... you may want to reconsider this source. AiG is a YEC site, and doesn't support ToE, or any version of NDT. AiG does address antibiotic resistance, but if I recall correctly, it's in the incorrect context of 'loss of function.'


It is this fact that doctors understand and continuously provide evidence for in their practice. So as in the Wiki quote above they are supporting the idea that evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs supports the ToE.

Yeah... Ummm... you might want to read up a little more on antibiotic resistance if you think this is a 'fact' of evolution. It's a 'fact' or horizontal gene transfer, and allele reshuffling... nothing more.


The basis is that they are not faith healers.
Right they're Christian Scientists.


This subject started by my saying there are groups who “refuse all medical treatment” and you made the inference that this is the same as Christian Scientists. This became a whole new point to refute because we both know that this is not intension of the Christian Science faith. “…followers are free to choose to seek traditional medical treatment…” I re-quoted the portion in the above quote to make it clear that it was that distinction “refuse all medical treatment” which should have made it clear that I was talking about faith healers not Christian Scientists. The people you listed are not faith healers. They do not refuse ALL medical treatment. In as much as I also don’t know these people, these people are famous and if they really were to refuse all medical treatment (as faith healers) the news media would exploit such information. As they have done with the example I gave you, Andy Kauffman.
Hmmm... perhaps you need to read up on the definition of Christian Science. An interesting quote that appears to contradict what you've written.

"Christian Scientists who choose to rely on medical treatment for a specific problem normally give up Christian Science treatment for that period."




I said “without evolution” not “without ToE”
I didn’t say which came first because that is irrelevant.

Okay... so... this changes nothing. What's the difference? Hospitals predate the idea of evolution and ToE. Thus hospitals are dependent on neither biological evolution or ToE.


Biology itself is not a discipline it is a very broad category of science. From Dictionary.com;

Perhaps you should look up the definition of discipline. Biology certainly falls under multiple versions of this definition


Biology is; “The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.”

Botany: The science or study of plants.

Botany/Medicine 60k BC en.wikipedia.org...

Which means that botany began before 60k years ago. IE so did biology and its theories.

Okay... so by your definition, anatomy, astronomy, physics, etc. have all existed as scientific disciplines for thousands of years. Though I don't see how this changes anything. Hospitals would still exist if Darwin had never taken the Beagle voyage.



What do you think it to proves? You think hospitals would exist if they used incorrect and inaccurate methods?

Yes. Hospitals do exist, and thousands of people die in them every year... a good number of them from side effects, medical malpractice, and just that we can't cure certain diseases.


How does anyone identify a nosocomial infection? That would require the understanding of a discipline in biology. How do you treat such an infection? Without proven medication you wouldn’t know where to begin treatment.

Not from 'biology,' but from medicine, a discipline within biology.


But since we have many years experience in treating such an affliction we have developed antibiotics from ancient practices and medicines through the historically accumulative biological knowledge.

Antibiotics weren't 'developed from ancient practices,' they were discovered, quite accidentally in a lab by Fleming... they weren't commercialized for sometime after this. There was no 'historical accumulation of biological knowledge' resulting in the discovery of antibiotics. You should read up on the history of them.


If our biology (broad term covering thousands of disciplines) was wrong we would not have such abilities to provide a cure.

Becuase biology has made valuable discoveries doesn't make everything called 'biology' true. This includes the ToE. ToE is supported by inferences that have nothing to do with other disciplines in biology; it can stand or fall, and not effect other disciplines of biology. If ToE falls, this says nothing about molecular biology, zoology, plant pathology, medicine, bioinformatics, or any of a wide variety of topics that



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
fall under the broad heading 'biology.'


Out of the endless amounts of antibiotics only a few are appropriate to address the problem.

Again... you really need to read up on antibiotics. There are not 'endless amounts' of them. If there were, the concept of antibiotic resistance wouldn't be an issue. Antibiotic resistance is an issue quite simply because there are a finite number of antibiotics available. There are maybe 15 classes of antibiotics available... many are just variations of an existing class... last time I checked there were 4 generations of cephalosporins for example. Additionally, often resistance to one antibiotic can give partial resistance to an entire class of antibiotics. The antibiotic resources we have available are not as prolific as you have indicated.




The proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals,



This is proof of evolution

A common misconception and popular argument that is not correct. Antibiotic resistance has always existed. It existed prior to the 'invention' of antibiotics. You can't have antibiotics without resistance genes. As long as there have been antibiotics there have been resistance genes. Proliferation of antibiotic resistance is nothing more than reshuffling of pre-existing genetic material. It doesn't 'evolve.'

quote: Originally posted by mattison0992
surgical instruments left behind in patients

This is an indication that incompetent and irresponsible doctors still pass med school to become licensed doctors. This has no effect on; evolution, ToE, biology, or our medical abilities.

quote: Originally posted by mattison0992
What does all this say about 'biological knowledge?

It says that we are still learning, it doesn’t subtract from what we already know as right.


It might say that these people have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in their drinking water. It might alert you to the fact that human hormone disrupter medications that were rejected by the FDA are currently used as platisizers in standard plastic food packages. These hormone/plastisizers are fat-soluble. Without the accurate biological knowledge to test peoples blood for chemical contamination you wouldn’t know how prevent additional people from getting the same thing. With out correct biological knowledge we wouldn’t know what causes or encourages incurable necrotizing faceitis. Without empirical knowledge of bacteria no one would even know that it is not a mystical affliction

Exactly, but it has nothing to do with either evolution or ToE.


Originally posted by mattison0992

We use it to make medical/biological predictions about both the past (ToE) and the future (Medical practices and biology).


Describe three things that ToE has contributed to medicine?

This is proof you don’t understand the difference between evolution and ToE.




It also indicates that you missed understood the quote you used.

This is an incorrect use of the term ToE. Theories do not directly contribute anything they make predictions as it says in the quote.

Then this is news to the evolutionary biologists who use ToE to make predictions about the world. Perhaps you followed the saga of one of the most recent transitional fossils to be found. Evolutionary Biologists PREDICTED they would find such a fossil in such a location based on a multidisciplinary analysis of ToE. IOW, they used ToE to PREDICT they would find such a fossil in such a location.



But to address the intent
Describe three (3) things the evolution has contributed to medicine?

1) Genomics, en.wikipedia.org...

Genomics arose out of the field of biochemistry and subsequently spawned the field of molecular biology. It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory.


2) Antibiotics to treat bacteria. This was learned from ancient use of molds and Propolis.

Antibiotics arose, at least initially from the field of microbiology. Evolution made no 'predictions' of antibiotics. Antibiotics have NOTHING to do with ToE. They were not discovered by scientists thinking about evolution at all. Modern antibiotics are still discovered in other organisms, or synthesized by chemists. They are not a product of ToE.


3) Identification of inherited chromosomal translocations for human disease (incl. Cancer) research

This is molecular biology. This has nothing to do with ToE. Chromosomal translocations and other abnormalities saying nothing of ToE. ToE didn't discover these, biochemists did. ToE doesn't 'predict' these things.


4) How about a whole site of contributions. evolution.berkeley.edu...

Actually this site doesn't deal with 'evolutionary contributions to medicine,' it deals with 'evolutionary concerns' within medicine, that is drug resistance in pathogens etc, as well as the genetic basis for a couple of diseases. If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes evolve resistance,' then that's not much of a contribution. How does this assist the medical field? It doesn't.


6) Even drugs; Digitalis, morphine, quinine, and ephedrine are all modern medicines that have been passed down to us from prehistoric signature practice.

Okay, but this has NOTHING to do with ToE.


Alternatively
Describe three (3) things that biology has contributed to; evolution, ToE, and medicine.

· The understanding of DNA en.wikipedia.org...
· The understanding of genetics en.wikipedia.org...
· The understanding of cellular variation
· www.talkorigins.org...

None of this is in dispute.


Biology is not a discipline it is an enormous category of life science. Microbiology would be a discipline of biology.

This is just penny ante semantics and changes nothing.


Originally posted by



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join