You have not demonstrated yet a single use of evolution for invention of a single vaccine or antibiotic . You have demonstrated that you cannot point to a single vaccine or antibiotic and show how ever evolution played any role in invention it. Therefore your claim remains to be just a blind religious, fanatical belief. I already pointed that inventors of antibiotics considered evolution not to be a theory and did not need it. But that was not the question. Thank you for another demonstration that no believer in evolution can understand, less answer simplest questions. The questions remain to be the same. There is the WHO list of deceases, and there is a full history of discovering and treating them. Can you show me one, just one, which uses evolution in any way and couldn’t not be treated by an MD who is a creationist? Will you advise Spooky not bring her 4th grader to brain surgeon who has performed 20,000 successful brain surgeries, has received more than 60 honorary doctorate degrees, dozens of national merit citations, and written over 100 neurosurgical publications and openly disdains evolution?
I don't know how much more simple can it be. Claiming that evolution is used in diagnoses and treatment of deceases one has to illustrate, to take at least one decease and to show how evolution was used. Claiming that evolution is used for invention of antibiotics one has to take at least one antibiotic and to show how evolution was used. It is not like the plank is set higher than the 4th grade, - one, just one, uno, ein. Otherwise the claims still remain blind religious beliefs, and believers in evolution who have not been capable immediately to come up with one, uno, ein illustration only prove again and again that evolution is a mindless religion. Especially when it has been pointed that inventors of all antibiotic science did not consider evolution to be a scientific theory and a neurosurgeon who has performed 20,000 successful brain surgeries, has received more than 60 honorary doctorate degrees, dozens of national merit citations, and written over 100 neurosurgical publications openly disdains evolution. I am giving the believers full advantage. I am not mentioning that they should have something to back up a claim before they made and repeat it for 5 days, and I am not asking for a lot of illustrations. Just one, uno, ein. Google, don't forget talkingorigins.com, I just love to see that side in references, take your time. One, justone.
For all theists entering this discussion, before you criticize anyone for believing the theory of evolution, please provide the full, indisputable scientific evidence for Prunepicker's claims, as seen here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
Sure. Please repeat your question as succinctly as possible. Also, please remember that the point is that evolution is a foundation of all modern biology. That doesn't mean that nothing else is going on. For example, physics and Chemistry are happening, too. Yet, your doctor may not be directly using physics when he/she diagnoses a disease.
You just flipped to engineering. In airplanes, for example, there are numerous tradeoffs in design. There isn't some number that answers the questions for wing design. In my airplane, if the total weighs is a certain amount and I turn at a particular rate it makes me more vulnerable to wind speed changes that could be damaging. There's a whole set of curves along with directions concerning how not to have parts come off your airplane! It's about risk management as well as design. You're forgetting that there are a lot of variables in most diseases. Individual humans have various factors of heredity and exposure in ways that are not identical or 100%. The result is that your doctor will use "may" a lot. There are times he/she probably won't - like when some factor gets higher or lower than a number that is generally considered a limit where you should start being concerned. But, that number isn't necessarily the same for you as it is for others. Doctors needed a line, and someone looked at the results and decided where to draw a line. But, the data rarely if ever looks like a level line that skyrockets after some number is hit. And, the shape of the curve is for people in general - not you. It's just that you may be near the average and may be taking on more risk than you should if you go over the line - on cholesterol, or whatever. So, you may not hear "may", but "may" is the truth.
It is not about if the doctor can, but whether one should trust a doctor that went through all the biology courses required for college and med school and still thinks that creationism is real. A doctor that, even after being presented with overwhelming evidence that evolution is real, still clings to 4.000 year old myths. If I was infected with MRSA or c. difficile could I trust that this doctor would give me the proper treatment instead of just another round of antibiotics? After all, antibiotic resistance is the result of natural selection. The answer is no, I could not trust a creationist doctor with my life or the life of my loved ones. Why? Because if they are so blinded by their religious beliefs to ignore all the evidence of evolution, I cannot trust them to make the right decision in regards to my healthcare. I'm not saying that a creationist doctor can't do the right thing, but I can't trust that they will. As for your other points: Yes, a small minority of scientists question evolution. Next please. I assume you are talking about Gregor Mendel. I'm not sure how his interest/disinterest in Darwin's work is has any bearing on creationism or evolution. Seriously? Actually the Soviets banned genetics because it disproved Lysenkoism, a discredited alternate theory to evolution. Lysenkosim is responsible for mass famine in the Soviet Union. Why? Evolution has nothing to do with the testing of antibiotics. Substituting religion for science makes you a bad parent and teacher. I don't know if you are a mean bi^ch.
1. Fact: MDs are taught only disciplines MDs will use to diagnose and treat deceases. 2. Fact.: MDs are taught biology. 3. Fact: TOE is the foundation of biology. 4. Fact: TOE is obviously is used by MDs to diagnose and treat deceases. 5. If any questions go to 1. Of course, any questions are silly (and here, I can only guess - comes a real physical pain and fear to be shown to be silly - by the teacher, by mom, and to be laughed at, mocked and ridiculed by peers. That’s why believers in evolution are so fanatical, - they fear the physical pain. That’s why the believers to evolution react to any reality by mocking and ridiculing and end falling into a rage.) All I asked to take one decease, one bacteria and illustrate how evolution is used by MDs because whoever I can appreciate the iron logic and the 5 steps program, I would like to see what’s going in reality. Nothing, just the 5 steps program running again and again. I was betting everything on one, just one - nothing. No believer in the evolution is ever interested in reality.: A 2005 national survey of 1,472 liberal physicians shows that they ALL do not treat evolution as a science and almost 47% of them take creationism over evolution as a personal belief. That’s in 2005, long after evolution was imposed as a state religion in the US. Will one just one believer in evolution see the reality? Here what a professor of a medical school explains confirming the survey: Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools. If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team. I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. …I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine. Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field. Michael Egnor, M.D. Would any believer in evolution open the link or read the text? They can’t, they will just feel an objection and their minds get blocked by the fear of the physical pain. They will slip into 5 steps program and continue to point to the fact that evolution is used by MDs to diagnose and treat deceases. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Watch: Hey, believers in evolution, do they teach evolution in medical schools? Yes or no? As I said no believer in evolution can understand, less answer a simple question.
In scientific method, a fact is a recorded observation, like a temperature reading taken at a specific place and time and using a specific method. So, the ToE is not a fact. Theories are one or more hypotheses that have gone through a rigorous process of confirmation including attempts to prove they are false, and that are useful tools in further scientific investigation. So, the ToE is a theory. The school of science at most if not all serious 4 year universities considers applicants to have been taught the fundamentals of the theory of evolution before application. If not, it is a deficit. I highly doubt any medical school would accept applicants who, after 4 years of university level science, still do not have a reasonably thorough understanding of the theory of evolution. At the least, they would expect applicants to show what they are doing to make up for their deficit. Remember: Nobody has said that a doctor would use the ToE while diagnosing or treating patients. You are the one talking about doctors - yet you haven't explained WHY you are talking about doctors. In many respects, doctors who are seeing patients are more like engineers - consuming knowledge gained by scientists and other engineers before them. Listen to the doctor you quote. Is that doctor talking about research and experimentation - no!
Michael Egnor is a supporter of Intelligent Design and writes blogs for the Discovery Institute. His opinions of evolution are not objective; if anything they’re tainted because of his religious beliefs. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit religious "think" tank notoriously famous for its attempts to have intelligent design/creationism taught in American schools. Conservative "think tank's" such as the Discovery Institute that exist only to spread ideological propaganda are some of the most Orwellian institutions in existence. In fact the public manipulation of facts and misinformation campaigns promulgated by such conservative groups are what lead to an Orwellian state.
It's a scientific theory actually. Flawed maybe. But not a reigion. I've never seen churches, temples, or worship of any evolutionary deity.
That's quite the rant. Or course it is totally void of any evidence (you should make sure to link to your sources). To answer your last question, "do they teach evolution in medical schools?", the answer is no. They don't teach evolution in medical schools because medical students would have already taken biology in their undergraduate classes and have been taught evolution there. As we have been saying, evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Medicine is the advanced application of biology. No, you don't need to know evolution of perform brain surgery or set broken bones, but it is probably a good idea to have a basic understanding of natural selection when dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Nothing of what you are saying reflect reality. Any idea probably is a good idea... The reality: Ernst Chain who shared Nobel prize for discovery antibiotics as we know them with Fleming (Roman Catholic, Creationist) openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory’’. Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Don't let facts confuse you.
Ha, moving the goalposts,I see. And i will not be spoonfeeding you this information, as you are a grown man with an internet connection. If you were honestly curious (which you are not), you would have already looked it up for yourself. If you want to embarrass yourself by declaring that, because a stranger on the internet did not spoonfeed you this information after you stomped your feet and demanded it, it therefore does not exist ... then go right ahead and embarrass yourself by doing so. I won't get in your way.
All logical. We arrived , - They don't teach biology in medical schools because medical students would have already taken biology in their undergraduate classes and have been taught biology there. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html You have to prove and to demonstrate that what you are saying is true and has any relevance to reality; otherwise you are expressing blind religious beliefs with no reality behind them. It is annoying already. Take any scientific theory starting from Archimedes and finishing Einstein and show that any of them is " one or more hypotheses that have gone through a rigorous process of confirmation including attempts to prove they are false, and that are useful tools in further scientific investigation" No believer in evolution can possibly tell what is uniting all these theries, what is the scientific method and a scientific theory and - the main thing -why. I am not surprised that you are highly doubtful when as I pointed “evolution is imposed as a state religion in the US”. In the USSR and other totalitarian states medical students had/have to learn scientific atheism and scientific communism; history of the Communist Party is/was a prerequisite to get into a medical school. I predicted that believers in evolution will deny the reality. The reality is that include evolution along with that genetics in MCAT (but not as the foundation of biology) in a country where evolution is imposed as a state religion, https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/whats-tested-on-the-mcat-mcat-biology/ but then they drop off evolution and teach genetics. https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/education/medical-school/academics/curriculum/first-year.html You deny the reality, the testimony of a professor of a medical school – no use for evolution, direct or indirect in medicine, medical science– except for the horrific Virginia Act of 1923 and for ideologies which committed most terrific crimes against humanity. His words are accurate and can be easily checked and cross referenced. I pointed that founders of science of antibiotics and genetics did oppose evolution. I pointed to other realities. You can find no MD who tells the opposite. You can give no example which would tell the opposite. Any educated person would see how MDs use physics, chemistry, genetics, other theories of biology, directly, and tell examples off the bet, or google in 5 minutes. Believers in evolution have been having 5 days to google out one, just one example of any practical use of TOE, but the best they come out is some mysterious indirect use. The reality is that A 2005 national survey of 1,472 liberal physicians shows that they ALL do not treat evolution as a science and almost 47% of them take creationism over evolution as a personal belief: Sorry for not including the link: https://phys.org/news/2005-09-poll-doctors-favor-evolution-theory.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/# “the total proportion of physicians who identify their affiliation as Atheist, Agnostic, or None (10.6%) was similar to the proportion of the general population who reported None (13.3%, P=.06)” Why there are so many MDs Creationists opposing the ToE they had to pass 4 years before graduation in the country where evolution is imposed as a state religion? Did MDs who take evolution over creationism ever look at evolution again after years of practice? I absolutely believed that evolution was a kind of science until I went on forums and started asking simple questions with the idea to learn more about it. How many MDs absolutely believing that evolution is kind of science would be as absolutely disgusted as I was? Remember all evolutionists said that TOE is used for Diagnosing disease, vaccines, medications, testing of pharmaceuticals, engineering plant characteristic http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-68#post-1069593330 I can post more links. Short memory problems? No evolutionist can name a single practical use of evolution. If science produces knowledge that engineers do not consume – it is a garbage science. Your life, well being and comfort depend on MDs and engineers, not on scientists. (There is no clear division, as you can see MDs opposing evolution do a lot of research and experimentation.) No engineer, no MD, no veterinarian, no crop and food producer has been having any use for TOE.
Why in the world would anyone, ever, waste their time demonstrating this to you? This is an exercise for a high school science class. As a grown man, you have no excuse for this embarrassing behavior.
This all from internet: Ernst Chain who shared Nobel prize for discovery antibiotics as we know them with Fleming (Roman Catholic, Creationist) openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory’’. Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). I will not be embarrassing you because believers in evolution have no shame.
So you can't and you are not embarrassed. Thank you for proving that believers in evolution are lacking any feeling of shame and some other normal human feelings and are acting as brainwashed zombies. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-73#post-1069621928
Saying it is so because I was told so makes look like you were brainwashed and zombified. Why is it a scientific theory? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Definition of religion : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
….uh...you just described theism and your definition of religion says it as well. The "cause, principle and system of belief" found in Evolution is based on evidence of validity which religion clearly lacks.
Yes. Read other statements from him. He clearly states his devotion to his religion as superseding science - not just evolution. One can always find an individual who disagrees with anything you can possibly concoct.
False. Actually, that's not true, either. Science has no method of proving truth. It relies on rigorously eliminating that which is false - a process that includes several major steps. Science doesn't address questions of "why". That is the purview of religion. Science addresses questions of "how" - as in how something works. What went on in the USSR is off topic. It's been pointed out that evolution is NOT a major topic in medical school. And, I've also pointed out that evolution is not a technique for treating patients. One person - you made it plural. You're still stuck on doctors. MDs are not the only people working in biology. Finding a specific enclave of science related to biology doesn't prove anything.
Chain was an extremist Jew and obviously not only had no access to the data of today but thought in this way: “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” That should say it all.
