Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem
A deadly bacteria known as Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, is raising concerns in the medical community.
Jennifer Hsu in an Infectious Disease Physician at Sanford Health and has been closely studying this 'super bug' which is best known for it's ability to defy even the strongest of drugs.
“What has happened over time with increasing exposure to antibiotics the bacteria have developed ways to evade those antibiotics and they become resist to a certain class of antibiotics,” said Hsu.
In the United States, the bacteria have been found primarily in healthcare facilities and hospitals and are known to prey on the weak.
“Patients who are immune-compromised whether it be from medical treatments, chemotherapy for instance or patients that have had other severe illnesses that place them in the ICU-those would be risk factors,” said Hsu.
CRE infections are already an epidemic in several major cities including New York and Chicago, but Hsu said not to be surprised if we start to see them more frequently in less-populated areas.
“There's no reason to think that we won't see them in South Dakota and they won’t become increasingly common here but really our goal is to head that off before it happens,” said Hsu.
Experts said that there isn't likely to be a vaccine for this type of infection, but they are continually researching ways to prevent it from spreading. While doctors are fighting hard to keep it contained, it may be a battle they are not equipped to win.
"There is absolutely no reason to think that if we don't do a good job with infection control that this is going to stay in a hospital,” said Hsu.
Which may mean this 'super bug' is here to stay,always close-by and always a threat.
Uh, no, not criticizing, but recognizing.
I know that I have a presuppositional framework,
and I know you do too. You don’t.
You’re the fish in the water not knowing he’s wet.
Well I do have a framework that I view such things, I outline it all the time.
Science is of use in terms of applications and discovery.
Creationism is useless.
Experience, evidence, and history all support my framework. There is no evidence yet presented that has made me even question it, although I am open to such.
Until then -
science = of use.
creationism = useless.
How sad that you think there's a difference between Christian theology and Christian reality.
I see the need to macro Genesis 1 and 2 child's play, as if God did not know what He had Moses pen.
No, it's just telling two parts of the same story. No one points at a history of WWII and a history of the battle of Midway and says they are in contradiction. If Genesis 1 describes the Creation Week and Genesis 2 describes a portion of that week, they don't contradict each other or any other part of the Bible. If they describe what you say they do, they contradict parts of the New Testament that teach individual sin as coming into the world with Adam and call him the first man.
Even worldly history describes the time of hunter/gathers before agriculture became a recognized method of livelihood.
You're judging your Bible by the world's thoughts instead of the other way around.
Occam nor his razor is mentioned in the whole of the Bible by name or instrument.
True, but that doesn't mean the concept is unbiblical or anti-biblical any more than the fact that you and I are communicating in a language with completely different syntax rules than Hebrew and Greek is unbiblical.
The Bible does mention truth a lot, though. And it says that sin was introduced through Adam (1 Cor 15:22) and that he was the first human being. You say otherwise. Who do you think I will put my trust in?
Problem is, evolutionists can’t see past those suppositions.
Darwin sees variation within species and develops a hypothesis from it, and it’s come to the point today where evos see the hypothesis and see the *evidence* to *support* it.
Well, DUH, of COURSE it’s going to *support* the hypothesis, the hypothesis was built on it. Very neat circular reasoning, which has made the evos so confused that they can’t think outside of it.
“There is no evidence yet presented that has made me even question it”
and he can’t see that he has pre-suppositional assumptions.
OF COURSE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE TO QUESTION IT,
because it is a pre-suppositional assumption!
I will not cast pearls before swine.
Note that you use the term “science” and not evolution.
Whether you realize it or not, there’s a reason you did that.
You may think I’m about to say “evolution isn’t science.” Nope.
I’m going to say this: The vast majority of scientific history is a period where virtually every working scientist, including and especially some of the greatest names in scientific history, believed the world had been created by a God or gods. So it can’t be said evolutionism is necessary for scientific discovery, or we wouldn’t have had Newton’s laws or Mendel’s charts.
In short, belief in creation impedes science not at all.
You are conflating terms. The Christian equivalent of science is.... drum roll.... science.
The Christian equivalent of evolution is creationism.
To compare science to creationism is ridiculous and makes you look ridiculous.
If you want to compare creation accounts, by all means do so, but this single minded mission of yours to dis Christians and creationists by disingenuously comparing two different things is, well disingenuous.
Evolution is a philosophical construct to describe events seen with the exclusion of God built in. Evolution does not equate to science because the ToE is not science. It’s extrapolation of data based on philosophical constructs to explain life on this planet without the need of God. It’s essentially the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist, therefore placing it solidly in the philosophy camp.
What does impede science is the belief that miraculous intervention is the explanation behind physical phenomena. That is a useless supposition that leads nowhere, to no further discovery or application.
And as is the case with the idiotic ideas presented that antibiotic resistance comes about through direct intervention by God, or that it had to have already existed in the population infecting the patient - it is a dangerous idea, not just useless - because it discounts the idea that subjecting the bacterial population to a sub-lethal dose of the antibiotic could lead to it evolving antibiotic resistance.
How much Swiss Cheese will fit in a quart jar?
I am a Christian, as are many who accept evolution.
Evolution is an observation (descent with modification) that is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation. There is no exclusion of God any more or less than any other scientific theory.
One may as well descibe Einstein and Newton’s theories of Gravity as being an attempt to explain how the universe could form and exist without God. It is ludicrous!
So how about that e.coli information you asked for but didn’t read and obviously do not want to deal with?
I did not read it.
No more than one quart. Less, depending on how big the holes are.
You got lucky. Apparently there were no spelling errors in your geometry books.
Do you really mean to say this? Tell me, What species has been "observed" to have evolved to another species? Please, just the species to species which has been observed to have evolved. Distill it to its most basic statement and leave off the superfluous.
Biological evolution is defined as descent with modification. Seeings as how the mechanism life uses to reproduce DNA is the enzyme DNA polymerase, and it is not 100% accurate - descent with modification (evolution) is not only an observed fact - it is inevitable.
The theory that best helps to explain and predict such descent with modification is the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
Sad or not it is a fact. I do not consider the WORD of God theology, it is reality.
No, it's just telling two parts of the same story. No one points at a history of WWII and a history of the battle of Midway and says they are in contradiction. If Genesis 1 describes the Creation Week and Genesis 2 describes a portion of that week, they don't contradict each other or any other part of the Bible. If they describe what you say they do, they contradict parts of the New Testament that teach individual sin as coming into the world with Adam and call him the first man.
Obviously it is not my duty to convince you that the way it is Written came from God Himself, and He did not need any of His children to macro His Words. There is no contradiction by the Creator. However, He did warn there would be consequences to any and all that changed His word. Some do so in ignorance from traditions of men others know full well what they were doing. I do not 'deny' Adam was the first flesh human that sinned. The Bible also records that the devil sinned before this flesh world/age, and is the only named entity that has already been judged to be destroyed from within forever.... a number of his followers, who refused to come through this flesh age have too been judged to eternal death. Neither action has yet taken place.
You're judging your Bible by the world's thoughts instead of the other way around.
This is real confusing. God had Moses pen in Genesis 1:26 what the livelihood for those He created on the 6th day would be. AND before He had Moses pen that He formed the Adam, God had Moses write that there was NO man to till the ground. AND recorded history agrees with what God told Moses to write. I have even read that Chinese history predates 6000 years. I wasn't there so I can't verify but I sure would not be surprised if it their history did predate 6000 years.
True, but that doesn't mean the concept is unbiblical or anti-biblical any more than the fact that you and I are communicating in a language with completely different syntax rules than Hebrew and Greek is unbiblical. The Bible does mention truth a lot, though. And it says that sin was introduced through Adam (1 Cor 15:22) and that he was the first human being. You say otherwise. Who do you think I will put my trust in?
I should have done this in my first post. My Strong's Greek dictionary says that all of the times Adam is used in the New Testament are from the same Greek word. Strong's # 76... ad-am'; Of Heb. or. [121] Adam, the first man; typ. (of Jesus) man (as his representative): -Adam.
Strong's Greek 121 ath;-o-os; from I (as a neg. particle) and a prob. der. of 5087 (mean. a penalty); not guilty: - innocent.
Now the Hebrew meaning of that word Adam is Strong's #120 aw-dawm'; from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):- x another, + hypocrite, + common sort, x low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Strong's Hebrew #119 aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:-be dyed, made) red (ruddy).
Interestingly David was also described as 'ruddy'. ISamuel 16:12; ISamuel 17:42.
Strong's Hebrew ruddy is #132 ad-mo-nee', or (fully) ad-mo-nee'; from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion): -red, ruddy.
Just a little background in what the name Adam as used in Genesis and ICorinthians actually mean.
IF the first Adam showed blood in the face we have a whole lot of quick time evolution taking place to have represented here on this earth right now all the different faces of God's children.
So you equate mutation with evolution of species? Just incomplete?
When you say "Not all evolution results in speciation?" Does it mean some do? So, we can communicate, you equate mutation as enough to be observed as evolution? This does not necessarily equate to evolution of species. Would it be fair to say that you believe, but have not observed , these mutations will accummulate, perhaps with geographic separations to speciation?
But it is fair that speciation has not been directly observed or do you contend that direct observation has been observed? Are you waiting for that to happen?
Speciation has been observed in fruit flies. They are still fruit flies, but a different species incapable of reproduction with the original strain.
Is this a reference to Diane Dodd’s experiment?
for those arguing that bacteria resistance beign a form of evolution- a simple google search for “bacteria resistance is not evolution” brings up lots of scientific and biological evidence for why it is NOT evolution and nothign more than adaption- it was also shown not to long ago that bacteria that suppsoedly thrived on nylon already had the necessary coding that was simply reignitesd if you will to survive on nylon when NEEDED however the claism that the bacteria prefered nylon over natural sustanance was misleading and false- and hte scientisits finally had to own up to the fact that htey had intentionally mislead peopel to make it look like evolution was ‘taking place in the present day’
evoltuion is biologically impossible- period- not just improbale, not just highly unlikely, but IMPOSSIBLE- dirty chemicals were not able to produce the clean chemicals needed for even a hint of ‘life’ to begin- and the conditions on earth that evolutionists love to point to as making life possible was infact completely hostile and incompatible to the extrememly fragile beginnings of supposed evolution and chemical configurations as proven out by hte miller experiments which failed miserably and onlyt prove that it was not possible to create and sustain the right sided amino acids in order to ‘get the eovlutionary ball moving’ without some very serious and very intelligent artifically controlled circumstances which ARE NOT possible in nature-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.