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.

 

“Did you know (many) Scientists are afraid of the Bible?”

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Sorry friend, I believe your wrong, at least for the most part. I am a scientist and know quite a number of them. Many are quite devout. What I fear and science fears is not "the Bible". but lack of understanding of and being unable to apply the scientific method to solve problems.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Keep it out of a science class because it is untestable. Its untestable because it is based on "God said so" and can not be tested by peer review, (or anything else)

I have no problem with it being taught in a class on religion. I'll go further. You can't teach history with out reference to the influence of religion. Pick a war, any war and see people killed because how many believed, often quite honestly, "my Gods bigger then your God". The truth is I really don't care if some one believes in "creationism" What scares me to death is any people being unable to think in a rational manner. My country, the U.S. has its measure of idiots in the political arena. Enough.

Before, I forget you might want to know how you can test evolution. But I don't suggest you do this to your self. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? We have it in non-organic food and were dosed with it often for no reason, except to get you out of the doctors office. Bacteria adapts. Thats evolution in the flesh.




posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 



Nice....


Now that's a post!


Concise...


Intellectually based...


Excellent!


I'm doing dishes right now...literally the MISTER MOM thing...



Lovely bride is out for a few days...

Please give me some time to chew on this ok?



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I need to add, any one who follows and lives by the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Buddha, religion or no religion, wont go wrong.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Wow, this thread started off pretty interesting but didn't take long before turning into nonconstructive arguing typical of far too many religion-related topics. Very unfortunate.

So, on to the topic of this post. When I read through the OP (two posts to be exact) I saw passages of scripture that were rather vague.

Where in the scripture you quoted does it state that the Earth is a sphere (yes, there is a huge difference between something being round and something being spherical)? Imagine living back when the book of Isaiah was written (Wikipedia says this is believed to be 8th century BC en.wikipedia.org...). Now, unless you can show me evidence that Isaiah was practiced and possessed considerable skills in terms of astronomy and mathematics, I can think of only three explanations for what he wrote. Either he was told by God all of the things he wrote about, he was relying on his own eyes to observe the heavens, or someone who was familiar with the relevant sciences helped him with his writings. It's easy, as a Christian, to simply assume that Isaiah was given the information by God. But try looking at this from the perspective of a skeptic. Take a look at the vague nature of the scripture you quoted.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." - This is something anyone could come up with. Many people believe God sits in some place in the sky. Looking down from such a place would make the inhabitants of Earth seem minuscule. When standing on Earth and looking up at the sky what do you see? A canopy, or tent that we live in, of space that's decorated by dots we call stars.

"He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind." - What does this mean? Apart from the tent, the rest of it could relate to a variety of things. It's far to vague to connect to anything in particular.

"The Lord speaking: 'It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.'" - Okay, again we have something that any person of monotheistic belief could have written in order to acknowledge that Earth and men were created by a deity. There is nothing in that passage that specifically makes me question the legitimacy of science versus Biblical text.

"WoW! He knew the earth was round and the universe is expanding! Gee wise!" - Okay, I want to point something out. Imagine living in the same time as Isaiah. Heck, you don't even have to do that. Walk outside at night and look up at the sky. Turn around a few times. What do you see? That the horizon, which is round, is around you. Above are countless stars in the sky which, in Isaiah's time and even by many people today, was believed to be where God resided. I'm still trying to figure out where you concluded that Isaiah knew that the universe is expanding based on that scripture.

How do you explain the incredible knowledge of astronomy and mathematics possessed by peoples, many of which lived outside of the Mediterranean region, during ancient times? Here are some examples that predate Isaiah.

Stonehenge (en.wikipedia.org...) and ( witcombe.sbc.edu...): Believed to have been erected between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. There are many annual solar events which could have been calculated based on the alignments and construction of the monument.

Egyptian Astronomy (en.wikipedia.org...):


Egyptian astronomy begins in prehistoric times. The presence of stone circles at Nabta Playa dating from the 5th millennium BCE, show the importance of astronomy to the religious life of Egypt even in the prehistoric period. The annual flooding of the Nile meant that the heliacal risings, or first visible appearances of stars at dawn, was of special interest in determining when this might occur, and it is no surprise that the 365 day period of the Egyptian calendar was already in use at the beginning of Egyptian history. The constellation system used among the Egyptians also appears to have been essentially of native origin.

The precise orientation of the Egyptian pyramids affords a lasting demonstration of the high degree of technical skill in watching the heavens attained in the 3rd millennium BCE. It has been shown the Pyramids were aligned towards the pole star, which, because of the precession of the equinoxes, was at that time Thuban, a faint star in the constellation of Draco.[1] Evaluation of the site of the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, taking into account the change over time of the obliquity of the ecliptic, has shown that the Great Temple was aligned on the rising of the midwinter sun.[2] The length of the corridor down which sunlight would travel would have limited illumination at other times of the year.


Maya Astronomy (en.wikipedia.org...):



Maya astronomical codices include detailed tables for calculating phases of the Moon, the recurrence of eclipses, and the appearance and disappearance of Venus as morning and evening star. The Maya based their calendrics in the carefully calculated cycles of the Pleiades, the Sun, the Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and also they had a precise description of the eclipses as depicted in the Dresden Codex, as well as the ecliptic or zodiac, and the Milky Way was crucial in their Cosmology. [14].
...
Although the Maya calendar was not tied to the Sun, John Teeple has proposed that the Maya calculated the solar year to somewhat greater accuracy than the Gregorian calendar.


What Isaiah wrote was nothing new or profound. For all we know he simply put into general terms the things that he was told by an astronomer of his day. Imagine that...science itself could have played a part in what was written in the Bible!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 



Yeah, we did go to Abalene


Another relevent post! OT must be living right?

Thanks...I'll get back to you tomorrow ok?

OT



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


Scientific method on the chart? You don't appear to have any understanding at all of the terms you are using. You're throwing around terms from statistics like you've only just looked them up on wikipedia.

Why so pretentious? Do you not feel happy that (you think) God loves you? You have to try to impress some of the more ignorant readers of the forum?





Dude, Where did you get the abilities?

See below for my occupation...

Ever heard of a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt? That's OT big guy....I eat the 'scientific method' for lunch....might want to think twice before posting non-sense!!


Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data. Also with prediction and forecasting based on data. It is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, from the natural and social sciences to the humanities, government and business.


Pretending????? That must be you...


= = = = =

Here's my methodology...


The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:



Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.



Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.



Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.



Improve or optimize the process based upon data analysis using techniques like Design of experiments.



Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability, move on to production, set up control mechanisms and continuously monitor the process.


= = = = =

Once again your sarcasm...does your position no good...

Here's one for you... www.youtube.com...

Stop DIVERTING...enjoy the video, if you have the guts...then look in the mirror!!!

HE"S WAITING


CAVEAT: That's a bit heavy I know...just responding to your level of aggression...

Now, one more time is there something specific you want to discuss around the content of the thread?


[edit on 24-11-2008 by OldThinker]

lol, your methodology is DMAIC?
Wow, that's not surprising considering you probably just only dug it up from the internet.

I bet you have the PMBOK guide on your desk too!


Quit yanking my chain. Back when I was in University, I took a year of statistics and project managemen to get my computer engineering degree, so I'm familiar with everything you are pretending to know about.

It's completely obvious guy, you should just quit while you are behind, lest you dig yourself into a intellectual deeper hole...


You "eat the scientific method for lunch" yet you believe that scientists fear god?

So is this thread your livejournal or something? Is this your blog?

You have to be the most ironic poster on ATS yet...


Tell me then, how do you and your scientific method fear God? Have you ever used the scientific method to search for God?

Why don't you, draw me up a statistical graph that shows the probability of God's existence and also give me a separate one that shows the probability that any particular scientist is afraid of the bible... you know, since you eat all this for lunch.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 


Sphere?


Thanks to Reynold for finding this, the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies claims "According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome" (Meyers 1989, 63-9).

Source: www.bibleandscience.com...

I read all your references...the Stonehedge wiki link was dead...the Witcombe link said, "whether this was intended use of the Aubrey Holes is highly debatable"...and there are recent "faniciful new age notions"

Egypt Pyramids? Yeah, pretty intriging stuff...don't see the relevance to my OP though....the 'interpretations' of pictures on the wall are subjective at best...

Maya links? Yes it looks like they were pretty accurate calenday guys...

I concede...that it is possible Isaiah might have had contemporary/cultural knowledge...thanks for that point.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hehe it occurred to me after I posted my response that I may have gotten a little off track on what I was aiming for. Plus I was wrestling with being out of space so that distracted me a bit.

The sphere thing, as I mentioned it, was relating to the shape of the Earth itself. I'm getting the feeling that you're referring to the shape of the heavens above the Earth being dome or sphere shaped. Sound about right?

I'll have to wait until later tonight or tomorrow to expand on what I was driving at with my long post though. Kinda busy at the moment!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   


lol, your methodology is DMAIC?
Wow, that's not surprising considering you probably just only dug it up from the internet.
I bet you have the PMBOK guide on your desk too!

Quit yanking my chain. Back when I was in University, I took a year of statistics and project managemen to get my computer engineering degree, so I'm familiar with everything you are pretending to know about.
It's completely obvious guy, you should just quit while you are behind, lest you dig yourself into a intellectual deeper hole...

You "eat the scientific method for lunch" yet you believe that scientists fear god?
So is this thread your livejournal or something? Is this your blog?
You have to be the most ironic poster on ATS yet...

Tell me then, how do you and your scientific method fear God? Have you ever used the scientific method to search for God?
Why don't you, draw me up a statistical graph that shows the probability of God's existence and also give me a separate one that shows the probability that any particular scientist is afraid of the bible... you know, since you eat all this for lunch.



Yes BB's use DMAIC....I'm glad you know what that is...

PMBOK that's a bit old...kinda nostalgic...

Back at "the University" where you got an 'engineering' degree? You guys ever make anything?

How bout a lawn-mover or something?

OT's got a new LawnBoy...got a grass catcher, power wheels and a Briggs and Stranton hummer of an engine!

Occams Razor asks, how'd that there Lawnboy come into existence? Good question 'OR' Well given enough time.........and chance.......and some more time........and chance......those wheels could wind up bolted to that little chassis you know.......and then after awhile that fuel injection system.....could find its way next to the handle bars.....and the that fancy grass catcher could just plop on the back end....AND WALLA!

You got your self a bad ass Lawnboy....oh yeah the gas....just oozed in the little cute tank....crank that baby and you too can cut your lawn...


No....as an engineer....you know you 'engineered it....manufacured it....in simple terms....PUT THE FREAKIN' THING TOGETHER!!!

Oh how more complex (and Valuable) you are my friend that my bad ass lawnboy!!!

Complexity doesn't just happen...someONE had to ENGINEER IT, right?

OT

And no OT never said all scientist fear God/religion/etc....


please re-read the title.....(many).....


Ever heard of hyperbole my man....?....spark a little attention/interest...OT thinks it worked...and no its not by blog


Smile....ok

OT Engineered!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 


I hear you...have a great night!!

OT out



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Plus its hard to take seriously a guy with a bobble-=head Larry King and some Sarah Palin neighbors on MARS?



OT Still ENGINEERED!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


lol, your methodology is DMAIC?
Wow, that's not surprising considering you probably just only dug it up from the internet.
I bet you have the PMBOK guide on your desk too!

Quit yanking my chain. Back when I was in University, I took a year of statistics and project managemen to get my computer engineering degree, so I'm familiar with everything you are pretending to know about.
It's completely obvious guy, you should just quit while you are behind, lest you dig yourself into a intellectual deeper hole...

You "eat the scientific method for lunch" yet you believe that scientists fear god?
So is this thread your livejournal or something? Is this your blog?
You have to be the most ironic poster on ATS yet...

Tell me then, how do you and your scientific method fear God? Have you ever used the scientific method to search for God?
Why don't you, draw me up a statistical graph that shows the probability of God's existence and also give me a separate one that shows the probability that any particular scientist is afraid of the bible... you know, since you eat all this for lunch.



Yes BB's use DMAIC....I'm glad you know what that is...

PMBOK that's a bit old...kinda nostalgic...

Back at "the University" where you got an 'engineering' degree? You guys ever make anything?

How bout a lawn-mover or something?

OT's got a new LawnBoy...got a grass catcher, power wheels and a Briggs and Stranton hummer of an engine!

Occams Razor asks, how'd that there Lawnboy come into existence? Good question 'OR' Well given enough time.........and chance.......and some more time........and chance......those wheels could wind up bolted to that little chassis you know.......and then after awhile that fuel injection system.....could find its way next to the handle bars.....and the that fancy grass catcher could just plop on the back end....AND WALLA!

You got your self a bad ass Lawnboy....oh yeah the gas....just oozed in the little cute tank....crank that baby and you too can cut your lawn...


No....as an engineer....you know you 'engineered it....manufacured it....in simple terms....PUT THE FREAKIN' THING TOGETHER!!!

Oh how more complex (and Valuable) you are my friend that my bad ass lawnboy!!!

Complexity doesn't just happen...someONE had to ENGINEER IT, right?

OT

And no OT never said all scientist fear God/religion/etc....


please re-read the title.....(many).....


Ever heard of hyperbole my man....?....spark a little attention/interest...OT thinks it worked...and no its not by blog


Smile....ok

OT Engineered!

Wow.

Sunk costs...

Ever heard of it?

Have fun.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


LM, Hey in our discourse let's not hit the 'reply all' button ok? Atleast not all of it...

Why am I the "most ironic" poster on ATS to you?


Could it be the my worldview is SO different from yours?

Is it illogical that I believe in God and be a stat guy/LSS BB? You know the distance from Heaven and Hell is 18 inches? Yep, that's the distance from your head to your HEART...Yep I reconciled both in my life...I'm not alone too...ever heard of these 'ironic' thinkers? OT's in good company!!

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Google um'



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 



You know LM,

From all your posting....I don't even know what you believe? Care to share that with OT?

I do know that it (seems) you like to ridicule...am I wrong? Your not alone either... see ... www.answersingenesis.org...

For creation no one really knows...I've said before OT doesn't KNOW if he's a 6000 or 6 bill yr earth dude... I just think in a free society all views should be discussed....because as a student of history....LM should know things like perspectives change over time...after more info gets out right? Should I list all the 'scientific certainties' that we now know are myths? Probably not enough band width...

What disappoints me is your attitude man? Why so angry?



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
Sorry friend, I believe your wrong, at least for the most part. I am a scientist and know quite a number of them. Many are quite devout. What I fear and science fears is not "the Bible". but lack of understanding of and being unable to apply the scientific method to solve problems.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Keep it out of a science class because it is untestable. Its untestable because it is based on "God said so" and can not be tested by peer review, (or anything else)

I have no problem with it being taught in a class on religion. I'll go further. You can't teach history with out reference to the influence of religion. Pick a war, any war and see people killed because how many believed, often quite honestly, "my Gods bigger then your God". The truth is I really don't care if some one believes in "creationism" What scares me to death is any people being unable to think in a rational manner. My country, the U.S. has its measure of idiots in the political arena. Enough.

Before, I forget you might want to know how you can test evolution. But I don't suggest you do this to your self. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? We have it in non-organic food and were dosed with it often for no reason, except to get you out of the doctors office. Bacteria adapts. Thats evolution in the flesh.




Hey A...Hope you got all things done yesterday...

Doesn't Macroevolution require change across phylogenetic boundaries?

OT does not see that in the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

Again thanks for the question and I look forward to further dialog!!


[edit on 25-11-2008 by OldThinker]



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Here'a bit more on those wee-lillil' one's...


First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.


That's 1....stay tuned



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Here's two of three...


Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 



And the last sir...


Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
source: www.apologeticspress.org...

See you when you get on...

OT



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture

Before, I forget you might want to know how you can test evolution. But I don't suggest you do this to your self. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? We have it in non-organic food and were dosed with it often for no reason, except to get you out of the doctors office. Bacteria adapts. Thats evolution in the flesh.


You said "Bacteria adapts." And that is exactly what it is, adaptation, not evolution. I read an article about a woman who moved from somewhere like california to alaska, and she grew hair on her chest. Her body adapted, it didn't evolve.

People in the middle ages believed in evolution. They thought that if they left rags on the floor that they would evolve into mice, and thats where mice come from. Well that just doesn't make sence.

You should look into how many scientist who start studying biology, start believing that there has to be a creator.

Funny thing is, scientist are not being allowed to blieve in a creator. Some are unable to obtain grants. Einstein, Galileo, or Newton wouldn't even be able to publish their work.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician


It's completely obvious guy, you should just quit while you are behind, lest you dig yourself into a intellectual deeper hole...


Man LM...with all this provato....I would have thought you would have been a better adversary????


I'm still here...in the 'hole'....problem is...there are NO atheists?? Must be a foxHOLE, huh?


Happy Thanksgiving...if I'm allowed to say that??


OT gonna enjoy some turkey tomorrow!




top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join