Ok, I'll bite. Which scientist used Creationism to predict what and what was the result and can I use it?





The trick, then, is in getting the new gene into the bacteria. The easiest way is to splice the gene into a plasmid -- a small ring of DNA that bacteria often pass to one another in a primitive form of sex. Scientists have developed very precise tools for cutting standard plasmids and splicing new genes into them. A sample of bacteria is then "infected" with the plasmid, and some of them take up the plasmid and incorporate the new gene into their DNA. To separate the infected from the uninfected, the plasmid also contains a gene giving the bacteria immunity to a certain antibiotic. By treating the sample with the antibiotic, all of the cells that did not take up the plasmid are killed. Now a new strain of insulin-producing E. coli bacteria can be cultured in bulk to create insulin.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/cell13.htm

As you can see the bacteria would use the new gene or not, by chance. But since the environment required bacteria to have the new gene to survive, only those bacteria with the code survived. That is what the theory of evolution predicted ("survival of the fittest") and that is what happened.

If the theory of evolution were not true, not only those cells fit to survive would have survived, but the others too. But that didn't happen.

What did happen was that while acceptance of the gene was based on chance, the survival of only those bacteria that did have the gene was NOT based on chance. It was predictable and it was predicted by Darwinian theory.

You can claim that that wasn't evolution, and maybe it wasn't "evolution" in the sense that Creationists use the word (Creationist "evolution" is very differen from Darwinian theory); but it is evolution in the scientific sense.

And the same mechanism explains how modified genes survive or die out in the real world as well.





The theory of evolution predicts that those lifeforms fittest to survive will survive. That simple formula explains how lifeforms with modified genes can outbreed lifeforms with the original or differently-modified genes. It explains how changes happened in the past and it explains how changes will come out in the lab and the future.

It doesn't explain what those changes are or how life started. It merely claims that changes that do happen have a certain effect.

And it's testable and fossils confirm that it has happened in the past over millions of years.






1. I have equated evolution with science because evolution is a scientific theory. And I have equate Creationism with religion because Creatonism is religion.

2. My bias is obvious: I don't mix religion with science. I am not hiding anything. If you claim that I don't admit my biases, you are lying.




Of course not. But as I said before, evolution doesn't make any claims about how life is created. So I suppose we can finally ignore that question. Evolution has as much to do with the creation of life itself as the prophet Muhammed has with Christianity.

(And I promise you, if you continue to pretend that you were never told that evolution is not about the creation of life, I will ALWAYS, from now on, pretend that Islam and Christianity are the same, even if you tell me that Muhammed is not a Christian prophet! I will happily write articles about how Islam and Christianity are the same, and, boy, can I promise you that I know enough about both and about ancient middle-eastern texts to come up with some pretty good stories about that. SO better be careful with how far you think you can carry this tactic of yours.)

I can drop a hammer from the top of a building and it will fall. Yes.

And similarly, I can keep two populations of fruitflies apart from each other for a few generations and observe that they do indeed change and that genes occasionally modify, including and up to changes that make the two populations into two different species (who cannot interbreed).

The problem with gravity is that I am sitting at a table with air around me, and the air molecules don't seem to know about the theory that claims that they should fall down because they have weight and there is a planet beneath me.

This is true if one wants to appear completely uneducated. Quoting something without having read the material then making judgements about the entire work is not very good form.  Take it from this former professor. One needs to put things in a context in order to get a clear understanding. 

Lula, what I see consistently is that you refuse to study context.  Its like you cherry pick, look for a quote that suits your purpose and then put it out there, case closed.   Your feelings about the rabbis are fairly clear and based on a totally erroneous and uninformed understanding.

In our discussion of the Talmudic quotations, I believe I tried to put them into a context of a hostile environment between Christians and Jews. When a people is being oppresed chances are they are going to have something not so good to say about their oppressors.  Yet, you consistently ignore your own religion's role in creating this hatred.  For the most part, Jews of Talmudic times just wanted to be left alone and to be treated fairly. There are volumes of Talmudic discussion about how to be fair and accepting toward gentiles. But no...Christians can't seem to let my people alone.  They have to try to convert us, get furious when we refuse, and get all self righteous about "their truth."  

For millenia Jews have welcomed "strangers" into their midst.  I must say, centuries of hatred has made this openness a tad difficult.  Its hard not to be suspect of the motives of a Christian in our midst.  You want to put your prayers in our public schools.  You want to impose your understanding of moral conduct on us.  You want Christ everywhere and the heck with those of us of other faiths, after all, we should one day come to Jesus, right? 

Won't happen. And we will continue to challenge your attempts to bring about a government based on Christianity.

Be well.

Actually, you DO need to read the Talmud to acquire quotes from its pages.

What you quoted is vile stuff, but it's not from the Talmud (and those statements that were, were taken out of context).

Stop-religion. As I said.




More than you. And if I wanted to question it, I would certainly research it more.

[Leauki:

quote]Ok, I'll bite. Which scientist used Creationism to predict what and what was the result and can I use it?[/quote]

This is done daily so I don't know exactly what you want. I think its some sort of a joke to make fun of me. There are scientists who believe in evolution and when they interpret their data they say "ah ha! evolution!" and there are scientists who believe in evolution and when they interpret their data they say "ah ha! creation!" Which one is correct?



This is all nice. I know how plasmids work. But you didn't answer my question: How has EVOLUTION been used to breed bacteria to produce insulin? Survival of the fittest is an accepted scientific fact on both sides, so don't say that. If both models make the same prediction you can't say that one is better than the other.



And so does biblical creation.



Now you've just switched your wording from "predict" to "explain." Which one is it? If it is explaining things then it is not a theory. It is an interpretation, which is what I've been saying all along. Oh yeah, and since we are still playing the symantics game, what "simple formula" are you talking about? Do you mean that there is a mathematical formula that we can use to apply to natural selection to prove evolution.. that'd be neat.



You haven't explained how it testable. You only state that it is. And how have "fossils confirmed that it has happened in the past over millions of years?"



It is my bias that evolution currently qualifies as a religion- a belief system that relies heavily on the supernatural. When proof of it comes to be, we can remove the religion title from evolution.



Then you disagree with the "great" Richard Dawkins here who has repeatedly said that evolution needs to answer the origins question (many others have said the same thing) and that Christianity makes scientific claims.



Is that a threat? It doesn't bother me as you say what you want anyhow...sometimes it's based on fact, and sometimes on opinion so what would be the diff here? The thing is Leauki, I know you know better so go ahead. I won't respond to it. You'd just be wasting your time anyhow and looking foolish in the process...and you know it.



Ok, but this doesn't prove evolution when both creation science and evolution make this claim.



Huh? There is gravitational force on the oxygen, nitrogen, etc around you. That's why the atmosphere is thinner the further away from earth you go. So I don't get this point.

I am not going to repeat the answer. Just read it as often as you like.

 

Adonai, the Holy One, blessed be He.

 A/K/A , the Absolute, the Infinite, Big Mind, Elohim, El Shaddai, the Universe.  God is God by any name. The God that pervades the universe, is the universe and all that is in it.

Be well.

Good Morning Everyone,

A theory is two or more variables that explain or predict something.  A good theory should be empirically testable to have any use value.

Usually theory is constructed from observation first, then as concepts are isolated from observation, they are operationalized into empirically verifiable variables. We look to see if there are relationships between variables. Does a rudimentary scheme arise? All of this is what is called "qualitative" theory building.  From here, the concepts, which have now become "variables" are quantified and a research design is implemented controling for threats to internal and external validity.  An experiment is conducted based on the design and results examined. This is called "quantitative" research and basically "tests" theory.  The former is theory that "explains" something we observe, the latter "tests" it.

 

Now, how does this little research lesson help us in this discussion?

 

Be well.

 

NS.

It is important to differentiate between a religion and a people. Peoplehood does often appear "clanish".  There is no separation between earthly and unearthly.  There is just the Universe, a non-duality. Our attachment to concepts is another matter. Yet, attachment is really nothing more than a sense of investment in a particular outcome. i.e., 'having this will do that', etc.  Some level of 'attachment' is necessary as we live in a relative world.  Its the degree that creates the suffering.

 

Be well. 

Clannisness is simply the seeking out of those like ourselves and our adherence to them and the rejection or ignoring of those that aren't, that is the meaning of clannishness. There is lots of evidence for clannishness in the overall history of mankind, and in the hebrew nation as well as other religions. It is not enough to just live by and tolerate anothers presence which is what many religions and peoples have done and continue to do. That doesn't negate clannishness. Tolerance is not enough. The history of mankind in general is enough to prove it. They have all at one time or another all been a very tolerant people, but they also have indeed been very clannish at the same time.

There is no necessary level of attachment required to live in this world, and having a personal interest in the outcome of anything is the strongest attachment. It is personal interest that indeed causes attachment and all the sorrow that you speak of. There are no varying degrees. One can be in the world, but not of the world. Those that help the most are those that have no personal vested interest in either those that they help or the outcome.

To live in the absolute and ignore the relative would not be a disaster. One can do just that. Once one lives in the absolute there is no need to live in the relative. However one can choose to do so, and it is quite possible to move willingly between the two and exist fully aware in both. We don't need to do those things such as get up in the morning, nor eat, or go to work, or even keep a schedule. However it would be a good idea to eat if we wish to maintain our current physical body, since that is one of it's requirements, but once one lives in the absolute one has the power and knowledge to create a physical body so even that is not really a need. These are choices that we make, but they are not necessities (except in the above case of the current physical), nor do we really need to pay attention to them since most generally we do them pretty much automatically, without forethought and without the act of doing so demanding our full attention. They do become after a while automatic. People who have risen at a certain time every morning for 30 or 40 years will quite often find themselves waking at the same hour even though they are retired and do not have to rise. People who have experience at driving for instance pretty much do that without the act demanding their full attention as well. Acts such as these, and most other acts in our lives, become over time habits.

However paying full attention to every act that we make in our lives is a wonderful idea. Paying full attention opens doors that we would not normally be able to open. And it allows for "seeing" because it silences the internal dialog by commanding the mind's full attention by completely engaging it on the action. The mind by it's very nature is forever explaining everything to us before we see it. The explanation of the mind is the very reason that, as science puts it, we see things not in the present but just a few seconds after the fact, since the mind filters the information first and gives us only the information that it finds acceptable. In other words the moment that we are seeing is already the past before we get the information from the eyes. We are never experiencing anything immediately, but we can if we can take the mind out of the information loop. Now there is a problem to this, and that is memory since it is the mind that stores memory. However the eyes have a memory of their own. If one looks at something such as a candle flame or anything else for a few moments and then closes their eyes they can still see the flame or whatever for a few seconds since the memory of it is imprinted on the eyes. One can recollect those experiences that are stored in the eyes, and make the mind witness to them.