Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In marketing lingo it is called the elevator pitch:
Pitch 1:
Everything is on the Genes. Give us enough money and we can cure all diseases and make you absolutely as intelligent or beautiful as you want. But it takes MONEY!
In any lingo it's called making @#$% up.
No one on behalf of science ever "pitched" anything like that and you just make @#$% up to have your post to be last in a thread, b/c in a miserable world of dishonest losers saying the last word is confused with winning.
You are not ignorant and you are not stupid. You are simply intellectually dishonest loser.
In marketing lingo it is called the elevator pitch:
Pitch 1:
Everything is on the Genes. Give us enough money and we can cure all diseases and make you absolutely as intelligent or beautiful as you want. But it takes MONEY!
Nobody ever said that, except perhaps the voices in your head.
Now, if you don't like the scientific method, your call. For some, the Enlightenment was something that happened to other people.
While there certainly are some scientists who were overly optimistic about the what the benefits of mapping the human genome would be, most have acknowledged they were wrong, and that's one of the many crucial differences between science and religion.
Like it or not, the economy revolves around money. That doesn't mean everyone seeking money for research is selfish or dishonest, they just need the money to do what they do like everyone else.
While the humane genome project didn't yield the practical results many scientists hoped, this is actually indicative how effectiveness science often is (though admittedly not always). If a field of study proves unsuccessful, it's eventually acknowledge as such and a new endevour begins. Conversely, religion has been positing the same discredited explanations for hundreds -if not thousands- of years. It's really pretty simple.
While there certainly are some scientists who were overly optimistic about the what the benefits of mapping the human genome would be, most have acknowledged they were wrong.
While the humane genome project didn't yield the practical results many scientists hoped, this is actually indicative how effectiveness science often is (though admittedly not always).
Yikes I have to step in and say that none of the above is accurate. The Human Genome Project has been the single most contributing factor to the enormous development of our medical molecular knowledge today.
Quote:
TODAY
The Human Genome Project has already fueled the discovery of more than 1,800 disease genes.
As a result of the Human Genome Project, today’s researchers can find a gene suspected of causing an inherited disease in a matter of days, rather than the years it took before the genome sequence was in hand.
There are now more than 2,000 genetic tests for human conditions. These tests enable patients to learn their genetic risks for disease and also help healthcare professionals to diagnose disease.
At least 350 biotechnology-based products resulting from the Human Genome Project are currently in clinical trials.
Having the complete sequence of the human genome is similar to having all the pages of a manual needed to make the human body. The challenge now is to determine how to read the contents of these pages and understand how all of these many, complex parts work together in human health and disease.
One major step toward such comprehensive understanding was the development in 2005 of the HapMap (HapMap Homepage), which is a catalog of common genetic variation, or haplotypes, in the human genome. In 2010, the third phase of the HapMap project was published, with data from 11 global populations, the largest survey of human genetic variation performed to date. HapMap data have accelerated the search for genes involved in common human diseases, and have already yielded impressive results in finding genetic factors involved in conditions ranging from age-related blindness to obesity.
The tools created through the Human Genome Project continue to underlie efforts to characterize the genomes of important organisms used extensively in biomedical research, including fruit flies, roundworms, and mice.
NIH’s Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program has become a model for other research efforts seeking to address ethical issues in a proactive manner (The ELSI Research Program).
With the drastic decline in the cost of sequencing whole exomes or genomes, groundbreaking comparative genomic studies are now identifiying the causes of rare diseases such as Kabuki and Miller syndromes.
Much work still remains to be done. Despite many important genetic discoveries, the genetics of complex diseases such as heart disease are still far from clear.
Pharmacogenomics is a field that looks at how genetic variation affects an individual’s response to a drug. Pharmacogenomic tests can already identify whether or not a breast cancer patient will respond to the drug Herceptin, whether an AIDS patient should take the drug Abacavir, or what the correct dose of the blood-thinner Warfarin should be.
However I will support that scientists continue to test hypothesis and theories that are fully supported and well established. Science will continue to push the boarders in order to find new ways of understanding something that has already been widely accepted.
That is the most pronounced difference between science and religion.
Science forces us to reassess our place in the Cosmos. It opens our eyes to the world just as art and literature and music. A rainbow is not any less beautiful just because you understand how it’s created…in fact it’s more beautiful when you understand the amazing things that are happening at the scientific understanding level. In fact it’s much more exciting.
The great thing about science vs. religion is that your willing to change your beliefs…you are not assuming the answers before you ask the question.
Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background.
The great thing about science vs. religion is that your willing to change your beliefs…you are not assuming the answers before you ask the question.
Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background.
See, I have to disagree with you there. Some of the sharpest scientific minds have/had an extensive belief system. Obviously, a literal interpretation of Genesis or insistence on the Flood being a real event or other oddities won't work, but for many, the desire to discover all there is to know of God's creation is what drives them - to some, it's close to an act of faith.
While I do not see it their way, I am not going to tell them they're wrong. The logic is unassailable - by understanding how God put the world together, I am getting closer to God.
See, I have to disagree with you there. Some of the sharpest scientific minds have/had an extensive belief system. Obviously, a literal interpretation of Genesis or insistence on the Flood being a real event or other oddities won't work, but for many, the desire to discover all there is to know of God's creation is what drives them - to some, it's close to an act of faith.
Please allow me to clarify.
What I meant when I said that scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system: The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.
I am strictly speaking of the types of scientists who value the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion.
I don't view the application of science on topics as the flood, genesis or the god delusion as anything that can be supported by the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method forces you to change your beliefs once new evidence or findings are discovered.
The scientists that you are describing are driven by their personal beliefs and the Scientific Method is impossible to apply to abstract personal beliefs.
See, I have to disagree with you there. Some of the sharpest scientific minds have/had an extensive belief system. Obviously, a literal interpretation of Genesis or insistence on the Flood being a real event or other oddities won't work, but for many, the desire to discover all there is to know of God's creation is what drives them - to some, it's close to an act of faith.
While I do not see it their way, I am not going to tell them they're wrong. The logic is unassailable - by understanding how God put the world together, I am getting closer to God.
In following the scientific method one must also understand the word "scientific". when applied, the conclusion that there is "something" is far more reasonable then "nothing". Then applying the method seals it shut. How one "feels" about it is not my concern. But pushing off science as "anti-religion" is a large load of personal arm pit juice drippings.
In following the scientific method one must also understand the word "scientific". when applied, the conclusion that there is "something" is far more reasonable then "nothing". Then applying the method seals it shut. How one "feels" about it is not my concern. But pushing off science as "anti-religion" is a large load of personal arm pit juice drippings.
Science, as practiced, is not any-religion. It is its own form of religion with its own monetary goals.
Any one who challenges the orthodoxy of any v religion is quickly ridiculed and ostracized. For all intents and purposes all of these organizations behave in the same manner. One may decide to join one vs.another as a matter of taste. As, for me, I avoid all organizations since I do not wish my own inquires and thought processes to be inhibited by organizational dogma.
Coming back to Evolution, I see no difference between "the Gene did it' vs. " God did it". In both cases all that is being done if infusing Intelligence into some object, one being dead matter and the other bring somewhat supernatural. Ultimately the explanation is the same.
I find my explanation more satisfying and I am pleased that it does not adhere to the dogma of any organized "religion".
Science, as practiced, is not any-religion. It is its own form of religion with its own monetary goals.
Any one who challenges the orthodoxy of any v religion is quickly ridiculed and ostracized. For all intents and purposes all of these organizations behave in the same manner. One may decide to join one vs.another as a matter of taste. As, for me, I avoid all organizations since I do not wish my own inquires and thought processes to be inhibited by organizational dogma.
Coming back to Evolution, I see no difference between "the Gene did it' vs. " God did it". In both cases all that is being done if infusing Intelligence into some object, one being dead matter and the other bring somewhat supernatural. Ultimately the explanation is the same.
I find my explanation more satisfying and I am pleased that it does not adhere to the dogma of any organized "religion".
wrong. An honest Scientists is fine with being proven wrong. That means we learnt something.
your explanation satisfies you because that's what you need. I see it in every forum. Atheist self stroking each other and theist doing it too. then there is the personal stokers that just make up stuff to suit themselves. I, and a few others, are not really "teamed up" with people to make us feel better. We need no such gratification, we only need to look as best we can without making stuff up.
Coming back to Evolution, I see no difference between "the Gene did it' vs. " God did it". In both cases all that is being done if infusing Intelligence into some object, one being dead matter and the other bring somewhat supernatural. Ultimately the explanation is the same.
It's because you don't understand anything about Evolution or Genetics. Your limitation is no different from those who invented gods to explain the unknowns.
Evolution is not an unknown. Any person with some level of intelligence can easily look at all the evidence and draw the glaringly obvious conclusion. Same can be done with Genetics.
This can't be done with the god delusion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
