Free Republic

There is sterile saline solution on the operating field and we’re taught to use it to put the fire out. It’s the most readily available thing. We don’t keep extinguishers in the OR room itself.

Typically, you aren’t talking about a large fire, so getting the fire out isn’t as important as getting it out quickly. By the time you grabbed the extinguisher and pulled the pin the patient would be burned. Whereas, the saline could be used a faction of a second after the fire is noticed, plus the water would cool the skin and hopefully minimize any burns.

We have inservices about fires during surgery quite often. Surgical fires are an uncommon but not rare occurrence. Fortunately, they are typically extinguished before any harm is done to the patient. Lot’s of heat sources in the operating room these days. For example, we use fiber optic cables to deliver light to surgical telescopes [arthroscopy and laparoscopy scopes mainly] and the light from these is intense enough to catch the paper drapes on fire.

Then there are lasers, electrocautery units and etc.

My best guess is they didn’t let the skin prep dry on this lady before they used the electrocautery. It is alcohol based. A spark would ignite it easily and create a flash fire.

Exactly. I live in WV and I can assure you there is absolutely no way Obama will carry this state in 2012. Anyone who thinks this election means WV rubber stamps Obama doesn’t know what they are talking about.

The WV democrat is an entirely different species than the national version.

I used to run track and cross country at the collegiate level back in the seventies and at that time I could run up to 10,000 meters close to at close 5 minutes a mile. [my best 10k was 31:30]

Now...lol...that pace seems like a sprint. It is a sprint!

Five minutes a mile is not 'recreational speed' at any distance over 50 yards.

IMO.

Brian.

Well put, sir.

I agree with your point about 'theory' being used in its colloquial sense by the ID'ers, when they [we] refer to oursleves as 'theorists'.

I will drop 'theorists' the moment the string 'theorists' in cosmology drop it in favor of 'string hypothesizers'.

Brian;)

[Let's have a moment's honesty here. The *only* candidate any Christian ID proponent is thinking of is the Christian God. The only candidate any Muslim is thinking of is the Muslim God, etc, etc, etc.]
__________________

Well, why do you stop at Islam and leave the atheists out? Their candidate would be ET, right? The larger point being that ID, just flat out doesn’t necessitate belief in the Christian GOD or any God, god or gods, for that matter.

In fact, according to ID, the whole of issue identity is irrelevant, as it should be, since such questions come under religion and/or philosophy and not science.

Someone tell me again how ID is necessarily religious.

Omar.

So, Behe back-tracted on some statements, how does that establish ID as religion?

I submit that saying 'astrology is science' is no worse of an abuse-of-term than saying 'ID is religion', merely because one of the possible candidates for 'Designer' is the Christian GOD.

Omar.

During cross examination Tuesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild questioned Behe about an article Behe wrote in a journal called “Biology and Philosophy” where he combined his ideas on intelligent design and a belief in God.
Rothschild characterized intelligent design in the writings as a “God-friendly” theory.
But Behe maintained he was writing from a philosophical standpoint.

All of this is aimed at fitting the school board's actions within the Lemon test. Behe isn't helping his cause. [Pat Henry]
________________

Patrick, in my first post on this thread I said that the plaintiffs only real hope of winning was to get Behe and every other defense witness to mention GOD as much as possible, as mischaracterizing ID as biblical creationism, was their only argument.

And by golly, they are going to stick with it;)

Constitutionally, the only real issue here is whether broaching the subject of ID in the Dover school district represents a violation of the First Amendments establishment clause. Even the Lemon Test [that was me, btw that said ‘Law’ instead of Test] is a bit of a sideshow, in as much as, the Lemon Test issue is going to pivot around the same question.

That is: Is ID ‘religion’ in a constitutional sense?

Note that whether ID is good science is constitutionally irrelevant, as the only constitutional issue is whether ID=religion. Constitutionally, the folks of given school districts should have some input in terms of what their kids are going to learn regarding various…hypotheses…pertaining to origins.

Otherwise, their property taxes become instruments of taxation sans representation, no?

What would your namesake have to say about that, Patrick?

Omar.

I don't know about the grandstanding part, but yes, most of us know Who Created everything.

But that's actually irrelevant since science is not a democratic institution; but rather, one that follows the evidence regardless of where it leads.

At the End of the Day, that's the real issue here.

Omar.

I think the only thing the defense needs to do is to establish the fact that broaching the subject of ID [which is all Dover did] serves a secular purpose via the Lemon Law. Which, insofar as ID representing just an alternative to the received wisdom of Darwin, does. If ID supplanted Darwin, it would be a different issue.

The problem for the plaintiffs [ACLU et al] is going to be in establishing ID as a religion or religious instruction. The only way they can do that is by mischaracterizing ID as religion, when all ID really is, is an attempt to use some garden variety tools of science [probability and information sciences for ex.] to see if design in biology is real, in the sense that it is indicative of a prior intelligence; or, whether design just apparent in the sense that things only appear to be designed.

Look for the ACLU lawyers to try and get Behe to mention GOD as much as possible.

It’s all they have, really. And if the defense can keep ID from being mischaracterized as warmed-over biblical creationism, then ID is going to be immune from ‘the establishment argument’ and the issue will be decided on the local level by local school boards…where such issues should always be decided.

Omar.

“Nothing's more tiring on these Crevo threads than having to debunk the same tired, ignorant, wrong ideas and beliefs of evolution, like this whole "why are there still monkeys?" tired argument that creationists always try to make.”

There are tired caricatures on both sides of the crevo debate, though I noticed the ‘flat-earth, thingy, hasn’t been brought up yet;)

I noticed one poster criticized the 747 analogy on the grounds that biological life is capable of reproducing. Well….what does the 747 analogy attempt to illustrate but the vast improbabilities entailed in getting from point A [simple organic cmpds] to B [biology]??

Given pre-existent biology is cheating, according to the analogy. Also, ‘simple-cells’ or ‘simple biology’ is profoundly oxymoronic given the current state of knowledge in molecular and cellular biology. Even a relatively simple cell or virus is astoundingly complex if only from an informational standpoint.

Of course, we all know that abiogenesis is considered out of bounds [most vociferously by the Darwinists] in the crevo debate ; the problem is, if biology didn’t come into existence through some process of self-organization, this has severe implications for the central thrust of Darwin’s theory.

And that, is to put it mildly.

Hence, the debate; it’s not going to go away, its only going to get more interesting as time goes on.

Keep your eye on Dembski.

Omar.

I feel like I'm going to rain on the Darwinian parade with the following observation:

The American Prospect defends Kyoto on the same homepage it defends the Darwinian status quo.

Hmmm...

Omar.

Well, after reading that, one gets the idea that ‘evolution’ is a nebulous thing; sort of like looking at a impressionist’s painting, whereby one must stand back from the work and turn their a certain way, before they can fully appreciate it’s nuance.

Dawkins apparently has a ‘better eye’ for this ‘art’ than myself.

Omar.

Yeah, I dont get the connection either. If the fossil remains of Neanderthal are found in Euorpe, how can it not be that they weren't native to there?

As far as the fraud-aspect, that is an all-too-familiar theme in human anthropology. Personally, I think it would be well-served to junk all the presuppositions and start from scratch.

One gets the idea this guy represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Omar.

I learned to be skeptical of computer 'evidence' for Darwin ever since the 'methinksitsaweazel' program offered by Dawkins some years ago.

If that is evidence for The Theory, then global warming is real.

Omar.

Well Keli, is your name already secularized?

Omar;)

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism”


Such a degree if intellectual honesty as this is hard to find these days.

I’m one of those relatively rare individuals that has debated this topic from both sides. I’m a former Darwinian believer that converted to Biblical Christianity. Though I don’t consider Creationism as it is commonly defined, to be scientific in the strictest sense, in that it is too front-loaded with the presumption that ‘GOD-created.’

I also think it is pointless to look at these two views while trying to decide which is more or less counter-intuitive than the other. Since, while life arising out of the muck may be counter-intuitive to the strict theist, the notion of an eternally existent Creator is equally counter-intuitive to the orthodox materialist; indeed, if not more so.

I think that ID is something of a compromise position between the two extremes. In that, it more or less allows the evidence [or lack of] to speak for itself. It doesn’t insist for the existence of designer, so much as allowing for it. In other words, if strict materialism is unable to come up with a plausible scenario for the origin of life, why is not proper to infer that, that the failure of materialism is the triumph [and, de facto evidence] of intelligent design?

Also, given that the genetic code shares certain attributes with what we know as information technology, why is impermissible to use the scientific method to explore the possibility that it was, in fact, designed by a higher intelligence?

Omar.

"The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state."

There is so much wrong with that, I hardly know where to start with it. For one thing, ID doesn't neccessarily invoke a supreme being, so it is nothing short of misleading to assert that it is limited to biblical creationism.

Secondly, and perhaps this is the more important problem, the 'wall of separation between church and state' has become not only 'high and impenetrable' it has become so broad that it is quite arguably useless.

Unless of course, one side of the body-politic uses it to stifle another.

Omar.

And what is 'evolution' besides a godless creation story? Evolution is not a theory, it barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

And that is being charitable.

Brian.

Yeah, one man's theory is the other man's religion, when it comes to the topic of origins. I say we let the young minds in on the debate.

What is there to fear?

Brian.