Dr. Dalek

If my memory serves, the book of genesis says first god created plant then animal then man. Some, granted some, may interpret that as a basic description of evolution. That probably wasn't the intention of the writer(s) of the bible, but some people may take it like that.

I couldn't help but look it up, your right it is disgusting.

Ok I'll throw this out to you guys and I'll see how you respond: When a new drug is put on the market it has to pass a particular process; 1. It is made and chemical analysis is preformed and the potential treatments are isolated. 2. The drug is tested on animals, the tests are documented and submitted to the FDA. 3. Human volunteers take the drug for a few months to test safety and possible side effects. 4.Human volunteers with a disease take the drug for two years to test the drugs effectiveness. 5. A larger group of humans takes the drug for up to four years. 6. Data is reviewed and dosages are established based on data. 7. Information is given to the public, as is the drug. Often rare side effects aren’t detected until the drug reaches the market. Now many people opposed to Animal testing for drugs point out that using human cell cultures, and "simulated" organs such as Micro-brain (used to study cancer), pose no means of harming animals and are cheaper than using animals. However one has to ask the question, if these systems are cheaper than why aren’t the greedy, money grubbing corporations using them? Its because despite the use of said cell cultures one cannot get an accurate picture of what happens to a whole organism with many interacting parts from a cell culture, or a simulated organs. An organism is many interacting cells, tissues, and chemicals, not all of which are present in cultures. Now, I don't exactly like the idea of animals suffering, however I'd say that when introducing a new drug, some animal testing may be needed. Granted animals don't always react exactly as a human would to a drug, it would be good to know before using Human subjects if all the pigs, and rabbits died a month after the drug was administered. After all the effects of the drug might not be apparent or even existent for a long time, it might have a slight effect on the endocrine system, for example, and slowly cause a chain reaction within the body over a series of months. If that was found in even one of the types of animals used it would make people think twice about administering it to volunteers. Now the world may be better off without testing frills like cosmetic products, and other such things on animals, and I often wonder how much vivisecting is needed, however when it comes to a new drug, that peoples lives may be depending on, your better off safe than sorry. Not trying to sound condesending, however your not putting enough thought into this question. Surely the number of animals tested depends from senario to senario. Say your testing a Mary-Kay product. I would say idealy you should use no animals at all because, it's makeup. However if your testing a potential treatment for a particular type of cancer, it takes precedence over makeup, so you would use as many animals as you needed to get a clear idea about the drugs effects on them. This would be a good idea, getting something useful out of people who deserve what they get, but impossible to implement. The reason people are kept on death row for sometimes more than a decade is because despite the efficiency of the justice system it isn't perfect. Also there are too many powerful humans rights groups. (Note) I'm almost certain that I will stir up controversy with this.

CO2 is at a low level state because it is a byproduct of our bodies reactions, the energy has been used and converted into something else.

If the cells can discern self from non-self based on surface molecules how do cells confuse self with non-self in autoimmune disorders?

Controlled or limited hunting might be necessary to thin the species out enough to preserve it without totally wiping it out. I live in Maine and Turkeys have proliferated in this area and must be hunted in order to preserve them and prevent them from becoming a nuisance. I've never had Koala before, but I think it would taste good with sweet and sour sauce.

This reminds me of the beginning of the 20th century. Originally the Earth was thought to be several million years old, and now we know it is 4 billion or so.

I often find that when I close my eyes after seeing the same sight for a while, such as watching firworks, I close my eyes and see it continue. I don't know why.

DNA is stable for the fact that it has double strands as opposed to RNA which often has only one strand and undergoes far more frequent mutations and is more prone to hydrolysis. Check out this for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#Comparison_with_DNA

Things that I do for fun take advantage of the fact that most people are not very observant. I've found I can set things on people heads and they won't notice for several minutes if you do it just right.

Well, for example here is a quote on an e-mail conversation between me and a friend of mine who is a highschool senior and a member of Mensa. He is a genius and intends to study relativity in college.

Ah, Okay let me restate. The ID of today is NOT science. A similar idea, possibly in the future, could be a scientific theory, but not based exactly on the ID of today because of the narrow Judeo/Christian interpritation of God. That has been my opinion the whole time. I apologize if I miss-communicated it.

I was recently reading in psychology class about Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. According to the Wikipedia article this theory suggests that Humans can have more than one type of intelligence. Specifically : 1 Verbal-linguistic 2 Logical-mathematical 3 Visual-spatial 4 Kinesthetic 5 Auditory 6 Interpersonal Communication 7 Intrapersonal Communication I'd like to hear some comments on this if you will. The address for the Wikipedia article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligence

So your turning what I say into an obvious statement and then refuting it? That’s less scientific than ID. Your not arguing the point, your just using clever wording to discredit it. I hate repeating myself but . . . YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD IS TOO NARROW! What I have stated up until now is an opinion. It is a generally accepted belief that opinions cannot be wrong. My opinion is not wrong, your opinion is not wrong. We just disagree on the details. Thank you for pointing out my vary-very error, I will endeavor to improve on that in the future.

Thank you, I was getting tired of playing defense.

I used to be a member of the UFO crowd. I believe that many of them are credible and intelligent individuals with an honest and worthy opinion, however some such as the Saucer-heads (my affectionate nickname), are completely off their rocker in my opinion and take credibility away from other more objective individuals. I trust individual Christians, not their organization. Large organizations tend to give in to group think, which is a dangerous psychological phenomenon. Philosophy tends to overlap to a certain extent on faith and science. I subscribe to no God, God is hypothetical to me, therefore since I am constantly asking questions about God and seeking answers in a private way; it can be called philosophy because I have no significant predetermined notions about what God should be. I like the archetype of God as a vague willful force, but I would change that belief if it were proven otherwise. I appreciate that you understand I am just saying to keep an open mind.

I have a copy of the US constitution in my sock drawer and consulted the text of the first amendment on Wikipedia before my last post. You sound so certain, do you perhaps think yourself a God. Science is almost never absolutely certain. Stop using bizarre absolutes in your arguments. I have already said it is not a theory, I'm saying it could become one under vary specific circumstances that could conceivably happen in the future, though not likely the near future. You accuse me of not doing research yet you have not thoroughly read my arguments. Further more you are using more bizarre absolutes, and they make for very bad reasoning. Also I have found a few spelling errors in your text it might be in your best interest to do what I do and copy your text onto a word program and spell checking it before submitting. (Aside) Boy this is a fun debate.

As of right now I neither believe in nor trust any organized religion. I am trying approach ID as a philosophical argument not a theological one. ID is a philisophical, and sometimes a religious idea that should not be taught as a science, but shoud not be outright rejected. I do not care if I am alone in this assertion!

Who cares about faith? I'm an agnostic. ID is not science, I agree with that. Keep it for Philosophy class. For now,

The constatation says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it does not say "we shall keep anything remotely religious away from public schools" Science rejects no things, it is the study of the world, if such a study leads to an intelligent designer, God, aliens, Larry King so be it!

If you more carefully read what I had written earlier you will find that I did come to the conclusion through some review that ID, because it is not yet refutable, or otherwise provable it should not be regarded as a credible idea, or as a valid theory. The day may come when it is, but not right now. Also intelligent design does not necessarily have to do with God, there are Saucer-heads out there who believe aliens did it, I don't believe it, but if someday we did encounter aliens who could have done such a thing the idea could be revisited. To summerize. ID could become a valid theory IF and Only IF 1: An observable entity, willful force, or otherwise that could influence evolution is discovered. 2: There is evidence, measurable, observable, repeatable, that suggests said entity did influence evolution. 3: Alternative explanations fall short and all evidence is credible and validated. So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations that I believe ID is a valid theory. I’m only saying that it could under the right circumstances.

I wasn't trying to say that Gary Zukav supports intelligent design I was just giving an example of how science has found similarities with religion before and suggesting that it could, note I say COULD, happen in the future. Needless to say there is a good chance it won't, but you can never be sure.