should creationists be allowed in science?

[chimpkin]

Because they want to believe so bad on Evolution that anything is good for them and they do not think in reality of in the data available.

MRSA is an adaptation of the original bacteria to antibiotics. Sulfa drugs are an older class of meds-one that fortunately still works in some cases...but I think MRSA is becoming resistant to that as well.

There's a lot of talk about the possible "End of Antibiotics." The thing is, bacteria freely swap DNA as most of them have no nucleus, thus they pass resistance amongst each other.

We may come to a point where major surgery, particularly, abdominal surgery, becomes very problematic due to resistant bacteria.

Even more fun, read up on biofilms. Bacteria form communicating colonies that actively combine resources to resist antibiotics.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yet they're not dead. Not being dead is preferable to being dead.

I'm not sure. You could be not-dead and stuck in a thread with someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

A more pertinent question:

Should women be allowed in science?

Some wise man once told me: as soon as you notice that they are hiring more and more women into your profession, you should find another career. More women means that pay and respect of the job are going downhill very fast, very soon.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Not if you listen to some here or say...Richard Dawkins who certainly establishes his personal views within his scientific views to that they can not be distinguished from the other.

Offering Richard Dawkins as a representative of the scientific position, is the same as offering Pope Benedict as representative of the Christian position, or a Green Bay Packers fan as a representative of American Football. Simple, black and white arguments, rarely match the real world.

Respond to arguments, not to assumptions about the people who propose them.
Dawkins is a media product, The Bankable TV Professor, half of them borderline lunatics.

I pity intelligent students who have to be taught by fanatics of any kind.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yet they're not dead. Not being dead is preferable to being dead.

This thread is slowing down a little.

Possibly I could bring up a side issue.
Would people in Hell, if they had a choice, choose oblivion, or would they prefer to exist even though punished?

 

[GeoffP]

Offering Richard Dawkins as a representative of the scientific position

Actually in my experience, he's not too far off, really. There are a range of viewpoints, obviously, but the more severe critics will easily achieve par with Dawkins. Of those that I've worked with, I'd say maybe as many as half agreed with Dawkins implicitly; half of the rest claim never to think about the issue, and I could believe it of them.

This thread is slowing down a little.

Possibly I could bring up a side issue.
Would people in Hell, if they had a choice, choose oblivion, or would they prefer to exist even though punished?

Perhaps as a separate thread.

 

[GeoffP]

A more pertinent question:

Should women be allowed in science?

Some wise man once told me: as soon as you notice that they are hiring more and more women into your profession, you should find another career. More women means that pay and respect of the job are going downhill very fast, very soon.

Stop that.

 

[spidergoat]

Sickle Cell DISEASE a "positive Mutation"

IN USA Death Rate of Sickle Cell Disease.

8,000 persons per year
666 Persons per month
153 Persons per week
21 Persons per day


21 PERSONS DIE PER DAY....!!!! WOW bro. And this is a positive Mutation the negative mutation kills in the womb...

There isn't much malaria in the USA. Duh.

 

[spidergoat]

BUT they are confusing people calling diversification of a specie evolution the fact is a fish is a fish nothing else. And Mutations? well there is not a single mutation that we know beneficial for the organism, not a single one...

There is no such thing as a fish. We use the word, which we define for our own purposes, to describe a variety of creatures with a certain set of characteristics. It is a linguistic barrier, not a real one.

 

[Oniw17]

What a bigoted question. It's like asking if we should let diabetics be nutritionists.

 

[GeoffP]

There is no such thing as a fish. We use the word, which we define for our own purposes, to describe a variety of creatures with a certain set of characteristics. It is a linguistic barrier, not a real one.

Well, I would think it's at least a paraphyletic assemblage.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There is no such thing as a fish. We use the word, which we define for our own purposes, to describe a variety of creatures with a certain set of characteristics. It is a linguistic barrier, not a real one.

There is much more to it than that. Fish are a class of the chordate phylum which we have identified and named for a specific reason: it is a clade. It includes all of the species that are descended from one most-recent common ancestor.

Actually a clade is supposed to include the common ancestor as well, and not all classification groups do that. So they are not all necessarily clades, but they all include the species descended from a common ancestor, and no others.

This rigor may break down slightly at the lowest classification levels such as genus and species, but it is rigorous at the level of a class. Sure, we may be wrong, but as we discover new information we change the classification. In the last century we created entire new kingdoms!

 

[Saquist]

Offering Richard Dawkins as a representative of the scientific position, is the same as offering Pope Benedict as representative of the Christian position, or a Green Bay Packers fan as a representative of American Football. Simple, black and white arguments, rarely match the real world.

Respond to arguments, not to assumptions about the people who propose them.
Dawkins is a media product, The Bankable TV Professor, half of them borderline lunatics.

I pity intelligent students who have to be taught by fanatics of any kind.

I would hope that is true but from the amount of hypocrisy I've been exposed to on sites such as this site, FileFront and YouTube, his attitude and arrogance is proliferating to dangerous proportions.

These people have no idea what their doing. Spreading of hate for a philosophy that hasn't been proven. The society of the scientific community or at least it's disciples are breeding the intolerance that they fought against religion, the same social intolerance that created America, the same intolerance that massacred millions of jews the same intolerance that blacks faced after slavery.

And there is one thing in common...a perceived threat.

 

[spidergoat]

Reason can only be considered hate if you hate reason. I love intolerance. We don't tolerate racism, murder, rape, and we shouldn't tolerate nonsense.

 

[Saquist]

Reason can only be considered hate if you hate reason.

Every tool can be abused. As superior as the society of science wishes to appear they have been doing their fair share (probably more) of bludgeoning.
They beg-off the responsibility of their intolerance that harms society. They (You-whatever) are above schisms not unity. Regardless of scientific opinion or fact it's not their job to remain neutral. But that's the human equation involved that is inseparable from their conclusions.

 

[spidergoat]

Denial of science harms society.

 

[Saquist]

Denial of science harms society.

You mean like the denial of God harms society?

 

[spidergoat]

No, much worse.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[SciWriter]

(Chi looks empty just now.)


Best to go by the science knowns than the religious unknowns falsely claimed as knowns.