On 02 Mar 2012 02:17:07 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 01 Mar 2012 19:21:03 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off
the soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve
an omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved.
1+1+2 isn't exactly science. It is a clearly demonstratable concept.


It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to
use science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory
"Proven theory"? What "undeniable proof" do we have that ANY genus
has "evolved" from another genus?? Is there ANY "proof" that a genus
opf water animals "evolved" into a genus of land animals, or flying
animals?? Even more basic - is there any "proof" that somehow
vegetation "evolved" into animal life???

Has "science" been able to demonstrate that the latter is even
POSSIBLE??

Untill science can demonstrate it is possible, even with human
intervention, it is still FAR from "fact" - and even if it DID happen,
and can be PROVED to have happened - what intervention was involved??
What power or force provided the extremely complex conditions
required for this transformation to happen? It is obviously an
"extremely complex" set of conditions if the most brilliant of those
at the top of this "evolutionary ladder" cannot explain and replicate
those conditions to repeat the transformation under laboratory
conditions.

The "belief" in evolution as the major factor in the origin of man, or
the species, is definitely in the "unproven and so far unproveable"
realm of "faith" - and a "slavish" following of that "faith", to the
point that it influences other aspects of one's life - ie their
relationships with others who "believe" differently puts it firmly in
the territory of "religion".

of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to
formulate a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts)
before it is proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand.

And that differs from faith and religion in what way??

That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be
more questions coming out of that work than there were before the
theory was proven.

Which again differs from "religion" in what way??

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but
almost all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are
similar to the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe
they could be explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional
for) the survival of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent"
evolution, a well-validated concept.

Or perhaps the "god" is universal, and only the concept of the "god"
differs across thereligions and civilizations? Which does not
eliminate the (strong) possibility that more than one has a mistaken
"concept" of that "god" , or that one MAY, POSSIBLY have a
fundamentally correct concept and interpretation of that "god"

Indeed we disagree. If I say I don't understand "something", that means
either or both of two things. I haven't educated or bothered to educate
myself to understand the existing proof of "something" although it has
definitely been proven, or investigations as to the why and how haven't
yet elucidated the why and how.

Let me explain the latter a little more. I am a biochemist interested in
blood, blood platelets and other blood cells (including cells of blood
vessels, mainly the socalled endothelial cells lining the inside of
normal healthy blood vessels), and in stroke and heart disease, until I
retired a little over a year ago. One of the mysteries of blood has
always been why it is liquid inside normal blood vessels and why it
becomes "solid" outside - blood clotting. The whole thing is exceedingly
important because you don't want clots (or something different that's
called platelet aggregates) inside a blood vessel, but if you get a
wound, you want bleeding to stop as soon as possible. Ask the DOD, they
will tell you how much they have invested in research to stop bleeding,
with some successes.

It has long been thought that the inside of blood vessels prevented
clotting somehow, and at first it was thought to be a "teflon"-like
property. Now we know how far from that it is. For instance, it was
discovered (Bengt Samuelson got the Nobel price for it) that a
prostaglandin-like substance was made by blood platelets from arachidonic
acid that he called thromboxane, and which (despite a half-life of
seconds) was capable of causing platelets to aggregate and convert
prothrombin into thrombin, which causes blood clotting (thrombosis is a
related word). Another group demonstrated that aspirin prevents
formation of TX by forming a chemical bond in the enzyme that made an
intermediate in TX formation. Clinical trials have proven that aspirin,
in doses that really don't do anything against pain, prevent a great deal
of heart attacks and strokes in many people who would have had them
without the aspirin.

But that wasn't the end of the story. At some point in the middle 70's
an English group discovered a new prostaglandin-like substance they first
called PG-X (prostaglandins had been named PG-A, -B etc in sequence
following discovery, with G and H having been the latest until then), and
later PG-I or prostacyclin (because it has another cyclic bond). This
had the opposite actions of TX (which is called that because structurally
it is not a prostaglandin, although it is directly derived from PG-H).
PG-I inhibits platelet activation, and is made by endothelial cells on
the blood vessel wall. Great! Now we could solve thrombosis, strokes
and heart attacks! Even greater was the discovery that there are 2
different enzymes that make the intermediate to TX and PG-I,
cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 (Cox1, Cox2). And they are in different cells
platelets an endothelial cells. Cox2 isn't as sensitive to aspirin as
Cox1, so a not too big dose of aspirin (see above).

A very smart guy thought that if you could prevent the damage to stomach
and intestine that aspirin can cause in some people, life would be MUCH
better for people with arthritis. The very high doses of aspirin and
similar eroded those people's lining of their GI tract. The Cox1-
mediated formation of prostaglandins (other than TX and PG-I) prevents
that (in part). And it was thought that Cox2 formation of prostaglandins
mediated some of the pain of arthritis. So, they set about (before all
was known about Cox3 and PG-I) to make drugs that were specific for Cox2.
Some of these were/are Vioxx and Celebrex. Vioxx differs quite a bit
from Celebrex, but both were marketed as drugs for arthritis/rheumatism.
Merck was exceeedingly aggressive in their marketing of Vioxx and
withheld data about bad side effects and Vioxx has been taken off the
market because somehow (and I'm not sure of all the intricacies) it
inhibits PG-I formation in such a way as to cause an excess of heart
attacks over when it isn't used. About twice as many people on Vioxx got
MIs as people who didn't take it, and that effect (I don't understand
exactly how) persisted months after they stopped taking Vioxx.

I hope you get my drift that not understanding something has absolutely
nothing to do with faith, just is a result of a lack of knowledge.

It gets complicated by the fact that people aren't lab mice that are all
inbred to be identical.
Han, you are dealing with what I (and many others) refer to as "pure
science" - or "applied science" where you are investigating something
that happens - in real time - and studying all the effects of
different compounds - which can be identified, and hopefully,
eventually, understood.
No "faith" required.

Theoretical science - and theoretical physics in particular, is a
horse of a different colour - at least today. The Perimeter Institute
of Theoretical Physics is just down the road from my home - less than
2 miles away. Progress is being made - and some of the geniuses
working there actually have some pretty good and well established
theories and are making progress towards understanding.

The "science" of history and understanding the origin of the
universe, earth, and life are relatively in their infancy - and while
theories abound NOTHING has actually been "proved".

The whole "quantum" physics is totally beyond my understanding -
although the concept of parallel universes and different planes and
time/space continuums actually has a lot of possibilities for
explaining the "spiritual", and the concept of "eternity".

My guess is that a LOT of scientists in this field will find there is
a lot more "truth" to the biblical record than they are currently
willing to entertain. ( as have many archeologists and physical
historians - as places mentioned in the historical biblical records,
foprmerly thought to be ficticious, are found - and the basics - if
not all the details, are found to be historically accurate.)

You (as well as the hard core believers) need to understand and
remember that although the old testament scriptures may be "inspired"
they are based on a long verbal tradition before they were written -
and they are based on what was understandable by those people at that
time.
You (or they) cannot base a 6000 year old earth on the information
contained in the first 3 books of the old testament - and science CAN
prove that something existed long before 4000BC. Any "reasonable"
Christian, or other Theist, needs to admit that there is a strong
possibility that the 7 day creation is more of a metaphore than a
detailed scientific explanation.

And any "reasonable" scientist needs to also accept that - and the
FACT there is much they still cannot explain or understand which MAY
be related to some power they cannot prove or disprove - and the
concept of "time" or "age" may have been severely distorted by some
event, or some power, which is not yet understood by science - and
this "power" MAY be the "god" power or entity on which religion is
based.

I won't even get into discussions of New Testament scripture or the
diety of Christ - other than to say anyone who doubts the EXISTANCE of
the "historical Christ" has a strong bias and has blinkers on. That he
existed is a well established historical fact. Who or what he was is a
matter (at least to this point) of faith.