12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by xpoferensOf course we can prove the empirical nature of evolution. Perhaps you can explain MRSA another way? Magic? Divine intervention? No, I'll stick with genetic mutation and differential death, both of which have been shown many, many times. Speciation too, has been shown.
It seems you cannot provide empirical evidence for evolution, either.
Science cannot prove God exists, but science proves God has to exist.
[edit; of course, science in no way stipulates that God exists. I should know. I am a scientist!]
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBeing a scientist doesn't make you the ultimate authority in science, however, it will give you the chance (God willing), to get on your own to the conclusion that God has to exist.
Of course we can prove the empirical nature of evolution. Perhaps you can explain MRSA another way? Magic? Divine intervention? No, I'll stick with genetic mutation and differential death, both of which have been shown many, many times. Speciation too, has been shown.
[edit; of course, science in no way stipulates that God exists. I should know. I am a scientist!]
Regarding MRSA... as I'm not a (proud) scientist, allow me please to quote the following.
The antibiotic resistance of the MRSA bacteria (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, sometimes known as the “Superbug&rdquo😉 is due to mutations, which destroy some genetic information thereby allowing MRSA to resist antibiotics. There is no increase in information. While Darwinists assume that natural selection is the engine of evolution, in practice evolution would only proceed by natural selection plus information-increasing mutations. True Mendelian natural selection is entirely consistent with a creationist way of interpreting empirical evidence of changes in species.
Got it?
xpoferens
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionOne of the answers is... design.
Perhaps you could point out exactly where/why/how science proves God has to exist ...
I'm not a scientist, but I know what some of them say.
If you wish to access the following link, go ahead...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter9.asp
It's up to you.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by xpoferensThe only problem is that your quote is a lie. The resistance to antibiotics requires an increase in the DNA content of the organism. We can do it in a lab (I did as an undergrad) by transferring plasmids.
Being a scientist doesn't make you the ultimate authority in science, however, it will give you the chance (God willing), to get on your own to the conclusion that God has to exist.
Regarding MRSA... as I'm not a (proud) scientist, allow me please to quote the following.
The antibiotic resistance of the MRSA bacteria (methicillin resistant Staphyloco ...[text shortened]... ationist way of interpreting empirical evidence of changes in species.
Got it?
xpoferens
I am proud to be a scientist. I don't see that as a failing - everyone should be proud of their job. I appreciate that being a scientist does not make me an ultimate authority on science, but it does give me a higher credulity than Joe Q Public.
12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't you mean lower credulity?
I appreciate that being a scientist does not make me an ultimate authority on science, but it does give me a higher credulity than Joe Q Public.
😀
EDIT: Do you think there are limits to what scienctific observation and experimentation can and cannot tell us about our world?
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course, I meant credibility, but it's late, and I'm sick. I'll sleep on your interesting question and answer it in the morning. G'night.
Don't you mean lower credulity?
😀
EDIT: Do you think there are limits to what scienctific observation and experimentation can and cannot tell us about our world?
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettThis is simply nonsense and proven nonsense since we have not spiraled into a theocracy with it in the pledge. In fact, this country seems to be spiraling into a secular humanistic state if nothing else. I view it as religious bigotry and intollerance. For many atheists, the "G" word is worse kind of profanity that exists. Our religious heritage is to be scoffed at and be ashamed of rather than celebrated.
We would spiral into a theocracy with all non-theistic citizens being discriminated against.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyAmerica is supposed to be a secular state - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's why we maintain a wall of separation between church and state. Placing the word 'god' into the pledge during the McCarthyist era was but one step on the road to a fullblown theocracy. It's encroachment must be tirelessly combatted at every step.
This is simply nonsense and proven nonsense since we have not spiraled into a theocracy with it in the pledge. In fact, this country seems to be spiraling into a secular humanistic state if nothing else. I view it as religious bigotry and intollerance. For many atheists, the "G" word is worse kind of profanity that exists. Our religious heritage is to be scoffed at and be ashamed of rather than celebrated.
12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI don't know about the "supposed" bit. The Declaration of Independence clearly references God. Even the First only prevents Congress from establishing religion -- it was clearly understood that nothing prevented individual States from doing so.
America is supposed to be a secular state - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.