Ebola

[DogmaHunter]

As intelligent as that sounds, all you are doing is mashing up a bunch of terms in a completely arbitrary paradigm.

There's nothing arbitrary about this. This is reality. It happens all the time. Meds against virusses and alike need to be renewed on a fairly regular basis to accomodate for evolved strains of the same virus. Anti-biotics are adviced to only use when no other option is availabe, because they too no longer work after the bacteria evolve an immunity to it.

You can deny this and call it arbitrary as much as you like. The fact is that this is reality for medical researcher around the globe every day.

I say again, do you honestly think that science would somehow fail to come up with a cure for ebola, if evolution wasn't around?

I never said that. So I have no idea where you pulled it from.

Since you bring it up, I'll say that if evolution wasn't around, then medical research would be different. And most importantly, once a cure was found for a virus or whatever, it would continue to work, always.

We wouldn't need to follow up. We wouldn't need to return to the drawing boards to adjust the formula. It would simply continue to work for as long as the target virus is around. But this is not what we see in reality. Instead, we see that after a while, they stop working. Not because the meds changed... but because the target changed.

As a matter of fact, medical sciences would be a lot easier if there was no evolution.

Do you really expect us to believe that the only way for God to matter to Science, is if he can improve on trial and error, as if He did not in fact invent the process of trial and error itself to create Peace?

I don't expect you to believe anything. I'm just stating what the facts are. You can disbelieve the facts if you want. I wouldn't know why anyone would want to do that ever, but you are free to do so if you think it's a good idea.

Moreover, I haven't mentioned god. So I also have no idea where that comment came from.

How about a perfect trial and a perfect error? Ever thought of that?

I don't know what that means.

Care to illustrate with an example what the difference is between a "perfect error" and a "regular error"?

 

[Gottservant]

There's nothing arbitrary about this. This is reality. It happens all the time. Meds against virusses and alike need to be renewed on a fairly regular basis to accomodate for evolved strains of the same virus. Anti-biotics are adviced to only use when no other option is availabe, because they too no longer work after the bacteria evolve an immunity to it.

You can deny this and call it arbitrary as much as you like. The fact is that this is reality for medical researcher around the globe every day.



I never said that. So I have no idea where you pulled it from.

Since you bring it up, I'll say that if evolution wasn't around, then medical research would be different. And most importantly, once a cure was found for a virus or whatever, it would continue to work, always.

We wouldn't need to follow up. We wouldn't need to return to the drawing boards to adjust the formula. It would simply continue to work for as long as the target virus is around. But this is not what we see in reality. Instead, we see that after a while, they stop working. Not because the meds changed... but because the target changed.

As a matter of fact, medical sciences would be a lot easier if there was no evolution.



I don't expect you to believe anything. I'm just stating what the facts are. You can disbelieve the facts if you want. I wouldn't know why anyone would want to do that ever, but you are free to do so if you think it's a good idea.



I don't know what that means.

Care to illustrate with an example what the difference is between a "perfect error" and a "regular error"?

You don't get it. Evolution has nothing to do with finding a cure to a disease, any more than a totally arbitrary paradigm of another kind. Knowledge is not a function of exercise. The mere fact that you exercise the knowledge of Evolution, is entirely arbitrary to the knowledge it represents. What really matters is what kind of a person you become in order to accomodate the beliefs of Evolution, and for the most part, it is not pretty - the ugliness of claiming science can't be done without Evolution being case in point.

Knowledge is disposable, pretending to own a corner of human progress on the basis of "knowledge" is the equivalent of slave trading, the only difference being that the level of corruption exists in relation to the guilt you can make other people feel for no reason.

A perfect error is forgettable.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't get it. Evolution has nothing to do with finding a cure to a disease, any more than a totally arbitrary paradigm of another kind. Knowledge is not a function of exercise. The mere fact that you exercise the knowledge of Evolution, is entirely arbitrary to the knowledge it represents. What really matters is what kind of a person you become in order to accomodate the beliefs of Evolution, and for the most part, it is not pretty - the ugliness of claiming science can't be done without Evolution being case in point.

Knowledge is disposable, pretending to own a corner of human progress on the basis of "knowledge" is the equivalent of slave trading, the only difference being that the level of corruption exists in relation to the guilt you can make other people feel for no reason.

A perfect error is forgettable.

The devout Christian, physician and scientist Francis Collins disagrees with you and quite strongly:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't get it. Evolution has nothing to do with finding a cure to a disease, any more than a totally arbitrary paradigm of another kind. Knowledge is not a function of exercise. The mere fact that you exercise the knowledge of Evolution, is entirely arbitrary to the knowledge it represents. What really matters is what kind of a person you become in order to accomodate the beliefs of Evolution, and for the most part, it is not pretty - the ugliness of claiming science can't be done without Evolution being case in point.

Knowledge is disposable, pretending to own a corner of human progress on the basis of "knowledge" is the equivalent of slave trading, the only difference being that the level of corruption exists in relation to the guilt you can make other people feel for no reason.

A perfect error is forgettable.

Look, dude, this isn't rocket science...

If you are a medical researcher and you disregard the fact that the germs you target are subject to evolutionary processes, thus that they can change, then you're not going to do a good job.

It's like trying to hunt a deer while ignoring that a deer can run away.

 

[digitalgoth]

What really matters is what kind of a person you become in order to accomodate the beliefs of Evolution, and for the most part, it is not pretty - the ugliness of claiming science can't be done without Evolution being case in point.

Preacher really messed you up didn't he.

Not sure how stating observable, testable, predictable facts about biology makes you some horrible person. Any more than stoning a woman when menstruating because of God's laws makes you horrible person.

Knowledge is disposable, pretending to own a corner of human progress on the basis of "knowledge" is the equivalent of slave trading, the only difference being that the level of corruption exists in relation to the guilt you can make other people feel for no reason.

A perfect error is forgettable.

A perfect error is most likely publishable.

So facts make you guilty? I'd assume facts would make you either happy to see the world more clearly or depressed that your parents backed a bad horse because they were too lazy to risk telling you how the world actually works. I mean churches do have free day care.

 

[juvenissun]

While we're here arguing about creationism and evolution, some of my colleagues are trying to do something about the state of the world:
fighting Ebola. (Note: Pardis and her lab, including me, are in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. So we can't get away from evolution completely.)

The idea of evolution is a tool, not a truth. One does not need to believe in evolution to use such a tool. It is nothing but a logical model.

So, do not mix science with faith. Science (evolution) works at a lower level.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The idea of evolution is a tool, not a truth. One does not need to believe in evolution to use such a tool. It is nothing but a logical model.

Of course, the one criteria to consider with any tool -- be it physical or logical -- is, "does it work?"

One wouldn't "use" the idea of evolution unless they believed that it got results.

So, do not mix science with faith. Science (evolution) works at a lower level.

So what makes faith "higher" than science? Does it work?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, the one criteria to consider with any tool -- be it physical or logical -- is, "does it work?"

One wouldn't "use" the idea of evolution unless they believed that it got results.




So what makes faith "higher" than science? Does it work?

A scientific model sometime works, sometime don't.
Faith always works.

 

[Gracchus]

I know where I'll be -- do you know where you'll be?

Cremated?

That's a verb, not a noun.

Or in this case, it's a participle, and functionally an adjective.

A scientific model sometime works, sometime don't.
Faith always works.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." --- Hebrew 11:1 NIV

So then, wishes always do come true, even if you never notice?

 

[TLK Valentine]

A scientific model sometime works, sometime don't.
Faith always works.

A scientific model works if it gets the expected results.

Does Faith get the results the person wants every time?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good for you and your colleagues, sfs!

Indeed good for them!

But it doesn't matter if they do it for Him knowingly or not. It just helps them in the end is all.

"If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." James 4:17.

sfs apparently knows right from wrong, and that one indeed should treat others as they wish to be treated. He follows the law of God no matter what his "physical" (intellectual) beliefs are, versus what his spiritual self tells him.

God calls scientists into the lab, just as He calls preachers into the pulpit, does He not?

Indeed He does.

Because it is science that is going to solve the eternal question of our time.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Ro 1:20

So that once they truly understand the things that are made they will no longer have any excuse to ignore His eternal power and Godhead, those invisible qualities of His that are clearly seen in those things that are made. Man will eventually through science leave themselves with no more excuses to deny the inevitable.


But indeed good work sfs, you do God proud and declare His glory willingly or not.

 

[juvenissun]

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." --- Hebrew 11:1 NIV

So then, wishes always do come true, even if you never notice?

Can you tell wish from faith?

No wonder, there is no such concept of faith in Buddhism. But Buddha did recognize that human has a lot of wishes. And Buddha said: Wish all the wishes do not come true.

 

[juvenissun]

A scientific model works if it gets the expected results.

Does Faith get the results the person wants every time?

YES, for true faith in Christianity.

In case you do not understand: A faithful Christian KNOWS what to faith about, and what not to faith about.

This is a much reliable operation than any scientific models.

 

[bhsmte]

YES, for true faith in Christianity.

In case you do not understand: A faithful Christian KNOWS what to faith about, and what not to faith about.

This is a much reliable operation than any scientific models.

If what you claim is true, it should be able to be tested and objective results obtained.

Have any objective testing and results to support your claim?

 

[TLK Valentine]

YES, for true faith in Christianity.

Ah, so it it doesn't work, it was never TRUE faith in the first place.

In case you do not understand: A faithful Christian KNOWS what to faith about, and what not to faith about.

Ah, so if they get it wrong, they weren't REALLY a faithful Christian...

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, so it it doesn't work, it was never TRUE faith in the first place.



Ah, so if they get it wrong, they weren't REALLY a faithful Christian...

You know how it is, you have to have protection on the back end.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, so it it doesn't work, it was never TRUE faith in the first place.



Ah, so if they get it wrong, they weren't REALLY a faithful Christian...

This is is a good one.

I should say: a faithful Christian WILL learn what is a faithful thing to ask for. To ask God for money is not always a wrong thing to do.

To have TRUE faith is not an easy thing to do. I think I do not have to explain that to you.

 

[juvenissun]

If what you claim is true, it should be able to be tested and objective results obtained.

Have any objective testing and results to support your claim?

Of course. It is a quite common situation. Many Christians can testify that to you.

A Christian asked for a thing, and it happened. Is that objective enough? If it does not happen, then he can try again. Is this objective enough?

 

[sfs]

The idea of evolution is a tool, not a truth. One does not need to believe in evolution to use such a tool. It is nothing but a logical model.

So, do not mix science with faith. Science (evolution) works at a lower level.

My intention was to change the subject away from evolution to something unrelated, so I wasn't actually talking about evolution at all. But since you bring it up . . . The only reason to use evolution as a tool is because you think it's more or less right. You can use a microscope as a tool to tell whether someone has malaria, but it only makes sense to do so if you think microscopes reveal the parasites that cause the disease; you'd be insane to test for malaria with a microscope if you thought malaria was caused by bad air.

 

[USincognito]

While we're here arguing about creationism and evolution, some of my colleagues are trying to do something about the state of the world:
fighting Ebola. (Note: Pardis and her lab, including me, are in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. So we can't get away from evolution completely.)

I'm glad to see there's a robust response to the Sierra Leone outbreak. Checking the Wikipedia entry, this one is the worst in terms of absolute numbers of cases and deaths and above 50% fatalities per infected population.

I'd read in the past that a wildfire outbreak was unlikely because Ebola and other hemorrhagic fevers kill so quickly and aren't spread so easily. The thought of a mutation which would facilitate transmission is rather disconcerting. It's good to know that geneticists are working on the strains and keeping tabs on them.

And I have a connection to Pardis. I was in Tehran the same time she was born there. (She's cute btw.)