"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[LittleNipper]

Is it? How could he, in good conscience, support gov. funding towards battling HIV (for example) when our approach largely rests on understanding evolution? That's the kind of thing that makes me nervous.

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

 

[Molal]

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

How would that end HIV?

 

[Braunwyn]

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

Where did I say we have cured HIV? If that were the case than funding to support research for a cure would be a mute point.

And, as I'm sure you know, people can contract HIV without participating in premarital sex. Rape, a cheating spouse etc. That isn't the point any way. I don't think my concern is difficult to grasp. Try again.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please don't pretend that you're in favor of critically discussing Christianity -- it's insulting to us all.

Sorry, Are you speaking to me or at me? Do you really wish to speak about christianity at all or how it relates to the world of science?

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, this already happens. I discussed the Bible in class when I was in public high school. There's no prohibition against discussing the Bible. There's a prohibition against promoting the Bible over other holy books, or promoting Christianity over other religions.

Well, I hope you enjoyed putting up a nativity along side Santa in the school showcase and hanging religious posters in the hallway for art.

 

[LittleNipper]

Where did I say we have cured HIV? If that were the case than funding to support research for a cure would be a mute point.

And, as I'm sure you know, people can contract HIV without participating in premarital sex. Rape, a cheating spouse etc. That isn't the point any way. I don't think my concern is difficult to grasp. Try again.

Well, perhaps evolution is not the way to go...? Perhaps it has nothing to do with the problem? Those issues you stated all require someone somewhere having sex outside of marriage.

 

[Brennin]

Is it? How could he, in good conscience, support gov. funding towards battling HIV (for example) when our approach largely rests on understanding evolution? That's the kind of thing that makes me nervous.

Battling HIV does not require an affirmation of common descent, especially since ape immunobiology is markedly different from that of humans.

 

[Brennin]

Science simply validates the atheistic viewpoint. The recognition that modern science demonstrates with very high probability that there is no such thing as a creator deity is in no way worshiping science: it is an honest appraisal of the facts.

Pull the other leg.

 

[Blackmarch]

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

Even though that would help some... Having knowledge of the person you're getting married to whether they have that or not would probably be another good thing to have.

 

[Braunwyn]

Battling HIV does not require an affirmation of common descent, especially since ape immunobiology is markedly different from that of humans.

HIV is an evolving virus. We do not have address the immunobiology of apes. This is a neat site I posted in another thread.

"Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04

Are you saying that certain aspects of evolution or our understanding of evolution are/should be embraced, while others denied?

 

[atomweaver]

Have not cured HIV yet.... Perhaps you got it wrong. A simple lifestyle change will end HIV. No premarrital sex.

...and no blood transfusions (for a more 'guaranteed' protection, the risk of getting HIV through transfusion is very low, but not zero, yet).

As an aside, I actually worked ages ago on this very problem. I was a (minor) part of the team of 9 scientists across two companies that made these products,

http://www.cerus.com/index.cfm/Technology/About_Pathogen_Inactivation

 

[Braunwyn]

Something I don't understand...if there is a God (for the sake of arguement) and s/he is responsible for the initial "spark" of life, what is so offensive about the concept of common decent?

 

[atomweaver]

Something I don't understand...if there is a God (for the sake of arguement) and s/he is responsible for the initial "spark" of life, what is so offensive about the concept of common decent?

To anyone who ascribes the this interpretation of the Creation story, there is nothing offensive at all. Such people are called theistic evolutionists, by one label...

 

[necroforest]

Something I don't understand...if there is a God (for the sake of arguement) and s/he is responsible for the initial "spark" of life, what is so offensive about the concept of common decent?

It invalidates a literal interpretation of Genesis; i.e, women being made from ribs and talking snakes and such.

 

[Schroeder]

Creationists pray for Armageddon to come quickly so that they will be saved.
Initially with Bush; any creationist president will wish for total global breakdown in the hopes that Armageddon will happen. That is why creationists insist that things like global warming don't exist. They wait till its too late and then they will say it is time to meet the lord!

Already the whole planet is reverberating from the ripples of International destabilisation wrought by the Bush administration.
Creationists have a death wish, and what makes it worse is the fact that they want us to feel the same!

I need to find a planet to move to; any suggestions?

you guys crack me up. and were the strange ones.

 

[Braunwyn]

It invalidates a literal interpretation of Genesis; i.e, women being made from ribs and talking snakes and such.

Ok, I have another question if any one feels like answering.

so everything today is as it was when "God" created it. Is that the case according to creationists? Do they believe that HIV is evolving or that antibotic resistance is a threat, or do they believe it's all hog wash? If they don't believe that it's hog wash and in fact recognize that adaptation is taking place, than how is that reconciled with their interpretation of Genesis?

 

[necroforest]

Ok, I have another question if any one feels like answering.

so everything today is as it was when "God" created it. Is that the case according to creationists? Do they believe that HIV is evolving or that antibotic resistance is a threat, or do they believe it's all hog wash? If they don't believe that it's hog wash and in fact recognize that adaptation is taking place, than how is that reconciled with their interpretation of Genesis?

It depends. Some are like that. Some believe in "microevolution" (that is, evolution that doesn't contradict their worldviews), and completely ignore the fact that that's not any different from "macroevolution". I believe there are even some now that believe in "megaevolution" (i don't think they call it that), which is a sad attempt to accomidate the fact that you can't possibly fit all of the millions of species on noah's ark; so just the various "kinds" were on the ark and afterwards they went out and evolved into all the different species.

Not 100% sure on that last one.

 

[Braunwyn]

It depends. Some are like that. Some believe in "microevolution" (that is, evolution that doesn't contradict their worldviews), and completely ignore the fact that that's not any different from "macroevolution". I believe there are even some now that believe in "megaevolution" (i don't think they call it that), which is a sad attempt to accomidate the fact that you can't possibly fit all of the millions of species on noah's ark; so just the various "kinds" were on the ark and afterwards they went out and evolved into all the different species.

Not 100% sure on that last one.

Thanks for addressing my questions. I don't know what to think. There are so many perspectives/interpretations under one roof. I can't keep them all straight.

 

[Vene]

Thanks for addressing my questions. I don't know what to think. There are so many perspectives/interpretations under one roof. I can't keep them all straight.

It makes it a lot harder to argue too. Unless a poster is a regular here I have no idea whether to argue against YEC, OEC, ID, or if I was arguing with somebody who actually agrees with me (theistic evolution). I do try not to argue with those who believe theistic evolution, but there are times when the language used looks like ID.

 

[Brennin]

HIV is an evolving virus. We do not have address the immunobiology of apes. This is a neat site I posted in another thread.

"Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04

Are you saying that certain aspects of evolution or our understanding of evolution are/should be embraced, while others denied?

When someone says that he does not accept evolution, what he really means is that he does not accept common descent of apes and humans. I think you would be hard pressed to find a person who denies allele frequencies change over time if you explained it to him.