If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[AV1611VET]

Instead he tries to pretend he has disproven all of science based on something he doesn't even know. Which is the better alternative?

Not hardly --- if you've read enough of my posts, you'll see that I actually hold science in high esteem.

As I have said before, God created the science that this universe runs on.

 

[Edx]

As I have said before, God created the science that this universe runs on.

Science isnt a thing, its a method of investigation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't really disagree with this, but how fast the FDA pushes a drug through the system doesn't really have anything to do with the science involved. It's more of a political issue.

Right --- blame it on the politicians.

Where do these politicians get the idea that these drugs are okay to market in the first place?

Why does someone have to die of Vioxx first, before someone takes a second look?

 

[AV1611VET]

*cough* Example, he said there were windows in the sky in Noahs time. *cough*

.

[bible]Genesis 7:11[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

You never even tried! The best you could come up with was some "angel in the alley" story!

As I recall, that was just an example that you or someone had asked for. An example from the magazine I gave you (Guidepost).

Yep, I'd agree that you have a problem understanding what a singularoity is. No argument there, congrats on admiting it.

There are about four different types of singularities. Miracles is one of them. I didn't understand the mathematical singularity, but it's clear to me some don't understand the miracle one, either.

 

[LightHorseman]

Once again is this a cure? You are so smart you must know that if your body is alkaline you cannot get cancer. You might want to check this out.
next...haha

How about you give us a source to check up on? Ha ha.

lol horsemen you sound like a puppet. Do you know what heparin is used for medically? there was several studies done, vit e is way more effective as a blood thinner with no side effects.

lol heparin is an anti coagulant. If vitamin E would work better, where are your double blind studies supporting this? Or alternatively, if there havn't been double blind studies, how do yo know? Ha ha

You should study more before you post on these things. you may want to check out chelation therapy.

lol I'm a nurse, I've studied plenty ha ha

lol Chelation therapy, you may wish to cite a source so I know I'm reading the same material as you ha ha

Oh, and yes, vacines ARE a cure, if used by a large enough portion of the population, the reservoir of a disease is destroyed and the disease dies out. Like smallpox. Indeed, vacination is the ONLY way to cure viral infections effectively. Ha ha

Last thing... why do you laugh in your posts? I don't get it.

 

[LightHorseman]

As I recall, that was just an example that you or someone had asked for. An example from the magazine I gave you (Guidepost).

I INITIALLY asked you for an example of scientifically observable theistic intervention, and you said "guidepost magazine". When I asked for an example from Guidepost magazine, you came up with the Angel in the Alley story. Maybe I wasn't being clear, so I will try again.

Could you please, if you have one, provide me with an example of biological theistic intervention that could be observable in a biology classroom. If the example comes from Guidepost or any other magazine, could you please show the actual example you mean, so we don't get confused about exactly where to look.

There are about four different types of singularities. Miracles is one of them. I didn't understand the mathematical singularity, but it's clear to me some don't understand the miracle one, either.

Sure I understand what a miracle is. But you said that singularities as science knows them, can't be predicted. I was merely demonstrating that they can be. Black holes are singularities. The Big Bang point singularity is another. Singularities also occur in super string and quantum theory. All of these events/phenomena, are termed singularities, and conform to scientific predictions. If you would like any specific clarification, I'm happy to do my best to explain them to you in layman's terms.

For the purposes of our conversation, however, miracles, in the Biblical sense, can't be predicted, because they don't conform to any sort of physical, non theistic causality. Therefore, even though I believe miracles are real, I don't believe they are a suitable topics for science classrooms. Scientific singularities, which create bizare and difficult to understand areas within space time, do conform to a set of scientific principles, and can therefore be predicted and observed, because they consistantly occur within the same parametres, over and over and over again, and are therefore suitable science topics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I INITIALLY asked you for an example of scientifically observable theistic intervention, and you said "guidepost magazine". When I asked for an example from Guidepost magazine, you came up with the Angel in the Alley story. Maybe I wasn't being clear, so I will try again.

You left out "non-Biblical", while adding "scientifically observable".

I'm still waiting for any non biblical evidence of theistic intervention. I'd accept any at all.

You want what?

Give me an example of "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention".

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

How does Guidepost not answer your question?

• It is non-Biblical.
• It is full of examples of theistic intervention.

Could you please, if you have one, provide me with an example of biological theistic intervention that could be observable in a biology classroom.

Well, we've gone from "non-Biblical evidence of theistic intervention" to "an example of biological theistic intervention that could be observable in a biology classroom".

And there's no way I'm going to hunt through Guidepost Magazine and post one of their stories, only to have you change the question on me.

 

[Tomk80]

Right --- blame it on the politicians.

Where do these politicians get the idea that these drugs are okay to market in the first place?

Why does someone have to die of Vioxx first, before someone takes a second look?

Because a 'first look' was taken and didn't seem to give harmful effects.

We did animal testing on Vioxx --> seemed safe
We administred Vioxx to healthy subjects to determine the working dose --> nobody died.
We administred Vioxx to a group of diseased subjects to determine whether an effect would take place --> nobody died and we had an effect.
We made a control group that received Vioxx and one that didn't to see whether the effect in the previous step really was due to the medicine --> effect was due to the medicine and, again, nobody died.

The above steps are taken in all approved medicins. If you look at Merck's website:

Merck does not intend to address specific cases or comment about ongoing litigation on this site. As a Company, we continue to believe that we acted responsibly – from researching VIOXX prior to approval in studies involving almost 10,000 patients – to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market – to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did. We based our decisions on the data from well-controlled clinical trials.

Now, the problem is the following:

On Sept. 30, 2004, Merck announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of VIOXX. The company’s decision was based on new, three-year data from a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on VIOXX) trial.
In the APPROVe study, there was an increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, beginning after 18 months of treatment in the patients taking VIOXX compared with those taking placebo. The results for the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show an increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events on VIOXX and, in this respect, were similar to the results of two placebo-controlled studies described in the most recent U.S. labeling for VIOXX.

So after people used it for 18 months, the medicin began to give it's side-effects.

So why does someone has to die first? Because after the first look, nobody had died. After the first rounds of testing (phase I, phase II and phase III trials) no side-effects that were that bad were detected. You cannot act on what you don't know, right? What would you propose instead for procedure? When should the medicin have been introduced on the market? Would you have agreed to the introduction after the first tests, without that knowledge?

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, we've gone from "non-Biblical evidence of theistic intervention" to "an example of biological theistic intervention that could be observable in a biology classroom".

And there's no way I'm going to hunt through Guidepost Magazine and post one of their stories, only to have you change the question on me.

Oh come ON... given that the thread is about biology and the teaching thereof, I think theistic intervention APLICABLE to BIOLOGY was pretty well implied.

 

[JohnR7]

Not hardly --- if you've read enough of my posts, you'll see that I actually hold science in high esteem.

As I have said before, God created the science that this universe runs on.

They get confused, they get carried away by the apostasy of evolutionary science so they forget that creation science is true science.

 

[JohnR7]

Science isnt a thing, its a method of investigation.

It is a methoid to investigate the natural laws that God created.

 

[Edx]

.

[bible]Genesis 7:11[/bible]

Yea, and? I know full well the Bible talks about windows.

 

[Edx]

It is a methoid to investigate the natural laws that God created.

Thats what he meant to say. See humans created science as a means of investigation, God didnt, and AV certianly doesnt hold science in high regard. He is specifically against science. If he doenst like the scientific method, he is against science. Its that simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

We did animal testing on Vioxx --> seemed safe

First of all --- who are "we"?

The above steps are taken in all approved medicins.

Approved by whom? An independent 2nd party, such as the Food and Drug Administration?

If you look at Merck's website:

Wheee --- I see how you convinced the politicians you're blaming now. Merck announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx ---

...based on new, three-year data from a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial...

Not based on someone dying - right? That would make it look like it's their ... I mean ... the politicians' fault.

Now it's based all of a sudden on "more research".

Sounds just like science --- change it, then justify the change by saying it was due to "more evidence".

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh come ON... given that the thread is about biology and the teaching thereof, I think theistic intervention APLICABLE to BIOLOGY was pretty well implied.

Wow --- how could I have missed that?

Okay --- for the record --- I can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats what he meant to say. See humans created science as a means of investigation, God didnt, and AV certianly doesnt hold science in high regard. He is specifically against science. If he doenst like the scientific method, he is against science. Its that simple.

I am against science, only in the areas where it disagrees with Scripture; but you knew that from my signature, right, Edx?

 

[Edx]

I am against science, only in the areas where it disagrees with Scripture; but you knew that from my signature, right, Edx?

Yes I did know of course. You cant hold science in high regard and then discard it whenever you feel like it.

 

[JohnR7]

Thats what he meant to say yes. Humans created science as a means of investigation

The point is that God created us with the ability to use science to investigate His Creation. If you deny God, then you deny true science. You can not have science without God being a part of it. Because science investigates God's Creation.

I know we live in a time of great apostasy. This will pass soon and we will be entering into a new and a golden age. 100 years from now people will be looking back on this debate. They will wonder how christians were able to endure the great apostasy the same as we wonder how the early church could endure the prosecution and being fed to lions to see if they really did have the power of God in them to shut the mouth of the lion. Of course I am told that sometimes they did shut the lions mouth and the lion would not eat them

Galatians 5:14-15
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." [15] But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

 

[Edx]

The point is that God created us with the ability to use science to investigate His Creation. If you deny God, then you deny true science. You can not have science without God being a part of it. Because science investigates God's Creation.

Thats your belief, its not based on science. If you can present evidence based on science then do so. Good luck with that one. Science is methodological naturalism. If you can find a way to verify supernatural claims scientifically then you can then say that science can include such things.

<snipped irrelevance>