Evolution? How?

rosborne, Your last paragraph is the sledge hammer behind your opinion that "I don't think the SC wants to be a laughingstock." It opens too many doors, and they're not gonna be able to defend their stance on ID Science.

I hope you understood the context in which I posted that. (obviously not). I feel sorry for you , in the sense that, as scientists keep answering the questions and decoding genomes and decoding how these few protein sequences work, all the Creationists are getting backed against a corner so I feel sorry for you when your head explodes (((KABOOOM)))

Parados, good points , I suppose the tsunami of a few months ago was proof to bilksner that Uniformitarianism was invalid. This was a unique tsunami. Catastrophes occur and are recorded in the strat history of earth to an extent that they become commonplace when viewed in the immensity of time. Also, the plate margin movement of that area has 3 plate boundaries converging on one super thrust area , so its a real earthquake prone zone..
The fact that we can know all the tectonics and plate ages is example of how Uniformity works. weve followed the motion of the continents skidding around for about 600 million years.


ci-re your last post, I hope your right,but I think its gonna get to the USSC ultimately , unless the lower courts just get it over with early. The schoolboard has stacked itself with ID proponents (Im not even sure they understand what they now stand for) so the newspapres are already coming up with catchy phrases to feed the people.

I thought the tectonic plate movements had a longer life span than 600 million years? Just a guess on my part.

The following two paragraphs from Aguillard vs. Edwards seem to give a clue to how the ID case will likely be viewed. In the case of ID, Michael Behe can be clearly linked with the sham of creationism, which is the complaint of the first paragraph. The second paragraph makes note that "requiring schools to teach creation science (or ID in this case) with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess". This is a key point. Nobody is stopping anyone from teaching ID if they decide that it's a valid scientific theory. What people are objecting to is that it be forced into the curriculum as a counterpoint to evolution, thus singling out evolution and exposing the sham of ID for what it is... a push to obstruct selected scientific knowledge in favor of a selected brand of knowledge ("Intelligent Design").

I think the court should throw this case out on the "been there, done that already" grounds.

Correct. While it's possible that they will be short sighted and walk blithly into the quicksand, it's more likely that they will render a decision similar to ones before, especially if they consider their own legacy to history (which I think is often at the top of their agenda).

hope for reason, expect insanity.

Every waking moment of every day

Bili's continual reference to answersingenisis.com leads to some of the finest humor I have seen.

Take this one that claims the entire world's coal was created by Noah's flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp

This leaves out several simple scientific points. The author claims it only took 128 years of plant growth to acheive the entire known coal reserves. An interesting point but it fails to address the issue of how there could be 128 years of growth happening at the instant that the flood occurred. Did the annual grasses live 128 years back then? Did the flood require 128 years for it to occur in spite of the claim of 40 days?
And what about all the oil reserves that would also require plant growth to create? How were they formed since all the plants were required to create the coal?
Is it possible the author was claiming that no plants decayed before the flood? He doesn't say so but that might have been a possibility.

Perhaps you can provide us with the "emprical scientific evidence" to answer these questions Bili.

Then there is this one which in some ways contradicts the other one..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp


I thought the Tsunami was pretty catastrophic as well as the author's own reference to St Helens. Don't you agree Bili? Vol? Certainly the large craters formed on earth from very large meteor strikes wouldn't have been catastrophic.



Bili, Didn't the flood last only 40 days and nights? Can you honestly accept an argument that claims it lasted 1 year?

The real question is where did all this water go that bubbled up out of the earth to cover the highest mountains and then dispersed. Can you provide any evidence of that water going somewhere Bili?

With god all miracles are possible; that's the underlying argument for everything in the bible.

God can age as well as make them younger.

Just wondering, who do you think is wrong; me with the idea that evolution is different from adaptation or those with the idea that they are the same?

It wasn't you but the analogy was ridiculously misguided and wrong.

For a True Believer, it's even more extreme than this, because not only is God omnipotent and omniscient, but he is also granted the flexibility of motive beyond our understanding ("God works in mysterious ways"), and in so doing is given the freedom of illogical and irrational (to us) action.

The result is the concept of a deity with not only the ability to do anything, but also permission to do anything (since we are not worthy to judge).

How confused must a person be to surrender the very right to claim an understanding of reality. All in deference to the concept of a being who's intent and actions are not even limited to logic and reason.

The confusion is a survival mechanism. It is fear. Accepting reality would mean accepting their own mortality and that is just an unacceptable option to many people.

mesquite, I believe what you describe is the basic, underlying principle to their "belief system." It's well stated.

c.i., It is also very difficult to overcome.

Amen.

Tracking the Uncertain Science of Growing Heart Cells
By NICHOLAS WADE

Published: March 14, 2005


n April 2001, researchers from the New York Medical College and the National Institutes of Health announced electrifying news for heart surgeons and their patients: stem cells from bone marrow, injected into the damaged hearts of mice, had morphed into the special cardiac muscle cells that the body cannot replace after a heart attack.

The researchers held out the hope that the procedure could be applied to people, too. The findings underlined a basic premise of stem cell therapy, that it will work before the cells and their elaborate control systems are fully understood - just put stem cells in the right place in the body, and they will do the rest.

But four years later, the treatment has yet to demonstrate whether it will fulfill its promise. And it has touched off a sharp difference of views among clinical doctors as to whether the therapy is ready to be taken to people.

Ten human trials of the marrow-to-heart approach have been completed in clinics around the world, all but one with positive results. But the overall degree of improvement in the patients' heart function has been modest. At the same time, the original research that provided the rationale for many of the trials has come under severe criticism from scientists who have tried without success to reproduce it.

The approach, if it works, would be a leading example of regenerative medicine, the idea that the best way to repair the body is not with strong drugs or the surgeon's scalpel but with the body's own system of cells and signaling molecules. Regenerative medicine should work, in principle, on the host of diseases that result as aging organs and tissues fail to maintain the vigor of youth.

The difficulties of the marrow-to-heart therapy do not dash the hopes for regenerative medicine or imply failure for the stem cell research financing set up by states like California and New Jersey. But they do suggest that successful stem cell treatments, whether with adult cells or ones derived from embryos, may require many years to come to fruition.

The bone marrow stem cell technique, devised by Dr. Donald Orlic of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Piero Anversa of New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y., was taken up with such alacrity because it promised to address a desperate medical need and seemed reasonably safe, given that patients were to be injected with their own cells. Patients are now being recruited for at least two trials in the United States, one at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston and a second at the Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston and two other sites.

The Houston trial, led by Dr. James T. Willerson and Dr. Emerson C. Perin, follows from a test in Dr. Perin's native Brazil. Though Brazilian regulators would allow only the sickest patients to be enrolled, Dr. Perin said, there was "significant evidence" that the treatment worked. Before receiving injections of their bone marrow stem cells, most of the patients were bedridden or too sick to walk without effort. But after treatment, he said, "some patients were jogging on the beach, one climbed eight flights of stairs, and one, who had gone home to live with his mother, reopened his business."

On the strength of these results, the Food and Drug Administration allowed the Texas Heart Institute to start recruiting patients for a similar trial. So far 13 patients with end-stage coronary disease have been treated, and all are doing well. "We are thrilled by what we have seen," Dr. Willerson said of the two trials.

At the St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Dr. Douglas W. Losordo has started recruiting patients and is also impressed with the results so far.

"There are dramatic examples of patients' going from being bedbound to living normal lives," Dr. Losordo said. Although the study is blind, meaning he does not know which patients were treated and which are serving as controls, the group as a whole is doing better. One patient who has left the study - the rules allow patients showing no response to be withdrawn after six months - turned out to be in the untreated group.

??? read the book?

how do i know your grandfather is real? i've never met your grandfather, and i didn't meet the people who wrote the original biography(ies) (oh no he has NO biographies? damn, that's gotta be a worse off case for you to prove him real.) how do i know any of it is true? you could've been a cabbage patch baby delivered by pelicans for all i care.

good argument.