Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This
Eden One - Yes basically that is correct as I understand it. Life arose in an anaerobic world. Oxygen was a toxic waste product of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria. Lucky for us.
Vidqun - You are not in a position to be insulting anybody.
Cofty, you may be right. Viv's problem might not be psycological. It might be physical, lack of oxygen.
Demonstration: Then it might be a case of tersiary siphilis. The spirochaete T. pallidum, if left untreated, attacks the brain. This disease was quite rampant during the 17th and 18th century. The British called it the French disease and the French called it the British disease. That's what I meant by discussing an organism (related to Microbiology of course). Off the cuff I can tell a lot of stories, without having the chance to Google it.
Perhaps she's got a pubic itch distracting her. Pubic lice or Pthiris pubis looks like a little monkey under the microscope. Its palm tree is the pubic hair. It climbs up the hair and stays there. Then comes down when hungry and drink blood. This bite causes an irritating rash. The lice itself looks like a little scab on the skin. When you see it on a person, you start itching all over. It's psychosomatic, all in the brain. And no, it doesn't help blaming dogs or horses. It is a human problem, adapted to survive on human pubic hair alone. Course of action: An ointment, razor and the removal of all pubic hair.
Disgusting personal attack on another member. You should be ashamed Vidqun. You owe Viviane an apology.
Nicolau, as a Medical Microbiologist, I would not know much of the flora and fauna of an eagle. Take note of the word "demonstration." If she followed the thread, and not jumped in at the end, she would have known what was going on. She preferred to play her silly word games and was rewarded accordingly. So tell me, you are condoning her response yet condemning me? Then you didn't follow thread either.
Now, let's see, a lack of oxygen might mean the are lesions in the lungs. A possibility then is TB caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis causing TB. There's two Mycobacteria of note, M. tuberculosis and M. leprae (causing leprosy).
Today, M. leprae is not a problem anymore because it is quite sensitive to antibiotics. M. tuberculosis is huge problem, especially in Developing countries. Often it presents in people that have AIDS. It's identification is as follows: Bloody sputum passed early in the morning is ideal. One places the sputum on a slide and stains it with a Ziehl-Neelsen stain. One heats the stain on the slide for a few minutes, then you wash it off with a weak acid. M. tuberculosis is a small gram negative bacilli (reddish under the microscope). It is acid-fast, so it will absorb the ZN stain, whereas the acid will wash the rest of the slide. Mouth epithelial cells stain blue.
One can also stain TB bacilli with a fluorescent stain. But for that you need a fluorescent microscope. Under it, the small TB bacilli fluoresces and look like bright little stars against a black backdrop. Even if you do not see the bacilli, but suspect TB, you do a TB culture. This is done aerobically in bottles on a greenish egg medium. This takes approximately five weeks. The TB colonies present yellow on the green egg medium. All positive TB sputums are cultivated in this way. Afterwards, in specialized laboratories, antibiotic discs are used to check sensitivity (not sure whether they are using antibiotic discs or dilutions - we always sent the bottles away to a specialized lab to estimate antibiotic sensitivity).
The problem with M. tuberculosis is that it is highly contagious and very dangerous. Laboratory personel use a reverse vapour cuboard, which is sealed and sucks out the air away from the person working with the sputums. Recently resistant strains have developed. All antibiotic treatment fails. The organism systematically destroys the host. I haven't been in a lab for a long time, so I wouldn't know whether above techniques have been changed or improved.
Vidqun your behaviour is unacceptable. Why are christians so obnoxious?
All that tells me is that you were a lab technician and worse, one who clearly has no knowledge of why you were doing the procedures asked since you still seem to have no clue about the scientific method.
You never answered my question; what is the point of doing science if your answer to everything is 'goddidit'
As an additional question who are you to be interfering with god's plan by identifying microorganisms under a microscope?
Cofty, you started the ball rolling with "Have you read any books?" remember? So those that barge in without a clue, well they give and receive in full measure. It's not one way traffic, you know.
Caedes, yes I was a glorified technician, that's all. I have never claimed otherwise. Remember, I told you about the ambition-thing amongst the Witnesses. Did you miss that? But really, do I want to justify myself before you, Cofty and Viviane, that is the question. Who do you think you are? What are your qualifications? Yes, I insist, I want to know.
Caedes: As and additional question who are you to be interfering with god's plan by identifying microorganisms under a microscope?
What are you talking about? Are you confusing JWs with the Amish? How would one interfere with "god's plan" by identifying microorganisms under a microscope? A Medical Microbiologist needs to identify the problem organism and do senses to inform the doctor, how to treat the patient. It's for the benefit of the patient. There is nothing in the Christian ethic to prevent one from doing good and helping one's fellow man. Are you taking the mickey out of me? On medication, perhaps?
Cofty: Arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.
There’s some irony there, don’t you think? The moment has come that I need to thank all of you for your inputs, especially Cofty, Caedes and Viviane. You demonstrate the evolutionary way of doing things. Those unbiased observers out there will notice that this is not logical at all. It is also highly unpleasant for anyone that holds an opposing view. As long as they dish out the ridicule, it is acceptable. But as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, they are up in arms. If I did step on some toes and caused hurt, I apologize. I hope that at least some of you would have benefited from the discussion.
Information theory and information technology are here to stay, whether they like it or not. Information cannot be brought forth out of thin air or from non-living matter, organic or non-organic. For information to see the light of day, one needs an intelligence, i.e., a brain. A book has to be written by an author. A computer has to be programmed by a programmer. At this stage life is so complex, we as humans can replicate life by using existing life forms. We have not as yet succeeded in creating life from scratch.
Evolutionists are happy as long as one does not refer to DNA as an information system or compare it to a computer program. The reasons for this are obvious. Unfortunately, because of its complexity, scientists are forced to study it, that is the working of DNA, RNA and the manufacture of proteins, by means of mathematical equations, computer simulations and programs. I stress the point, an information system cannot develop by itself or be derived from non-living matter. So, what are the alternatives? You be the judge….
I am a qualified Medical Microbiologist with Anatomy, Physiology and Microbiology as majors.
yes I was a glorified technician, that's all. I have never claimed otherwise.
You used your alleged qualifications to suggest that you had studied the topic being discussed, people are only questioning your claims because your comments betray a severe lack of understanding of the scientific method, no understanding of the basics of a well proven subject like evolution (your misunderstanding of the subject is that of a layperson not someone who has a scientific background) and an inability to make sound reasoned argument for your point instead relying solely on logical fallacies.
You still haven't answered my first question by the way.
The problem with M. tuberculosis is that it is highly contagious and very dangerous. Laboratory personel use a reverse vapour cuboard, which is sealed and sucks out the air away from the person working with the sputums. Recently resistant strains have developed. All antibiotic treatment fails. (sic) (my emphasis)
What you mean it has evolved? Wow, almost as if evolution is the scientific theory that underpins all biology.
If however god is the designer of all things then he designed tuberculosis to do what it does and he clearly designed it to "develop" into new strains. So I ask again who are you to try and help treat something that god has designed. I am asking you as a believer how you justify your belief when it contradicts your previous actions.