When beliefs of religious fanatics are just questioned, not argued, but just questioned religious fanatics a start ridiculing and mocking, but never even attempt to answer a simple question. Are anatomy, physics, mathematics, chemistry direct or indirect diagnostic tools? I can easily demonstrate they are. And they all are natural sciences. You have not demonstrated that evolution has been ever having any practical use (produce) . But you have demonstrated that it is a religion, hateful religion. (And on a personal note, my doctor who is a body of mine does not tell me "Get a flu vaccine" and my wife who is an oncologist, chemotherapist, radiotherapist does not get a flue shot and along with her colleges seems has no belief in the most of vaccination. Nobody in my family has ever got a flue shot. Let us ask Moi this board MD..)
I asked you to demonstrate that your belief that natural sciences is founded on nothing BUT evidence and logic is true. And I predicted that no religious fanatic will ever even attempt to demonstrate that his belief is true. For instance I can easily demonstrate that all theories of natural science require to disdain any logical conclusion based on empirical evidence. But I am here to demonstrate that evolution is a mindless religion. Thank you for demonstrating.
Sorry if you've been treated rudely in the past. There doesn't need to be ANY practical result of ANY scientific principle. AND, users of results don't need to know where those results came from or how they were shown to be correct. For example, the theory of relativity does get used - GPS, for one very practical and highly commercial example. But, does your taxi or uber driver know about special relativity? That would be quite unusual and totally unnecessary. That drive will still be able to use their GPS, because SOMEBODY DID KNOW. (You can ask why special relativity is involved if you want.) You need to remember that by definition, science builds up knowledge based on observation and previous knowledge. People may use that knowledge at any level - they don't have to know the full argument behind the knowledge. So, your MD is NOT a defining example of the usefulness of the theory of evolution (though I'd bet my bottom dollar he knows about it simply because he's an educated individual in a field of biology). And by the way, theories don't have to be useful. In physics there has been work on quarks. Will that result in something new and cool down at the 5 and dime? I don't know. Not yet, though.
Factually incorrect. Evolution has never said what DID happen. If you can produce a source from a university then put it up. You won't find anything of the kind. Evolution it totally based on extrapolation. This is also factually incorrect. Put up the evidence. Nope. It's all in the science, or the lack of it. There is no evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Not a shred. Good grief it's the basis of evolution and there are no cold hard facts to support it.
That's cute. Wrong, but cute. Now think about what you just wrote. It can't be caught in transition because it not finished. Really? You believe that? Of course it can be caught in transition. There should be examples all over the place with species truly transitioning. The way you're describing evolution leaves evolution out of it. Where is the evolving? All the fossil record has is complete species of their own. Not a single transitional fossil that shows it came from another. Now you're saying there are transitional species. Make up your mind. Nobody has provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species from the fossil record. In fact the fossil record is in agreement with me. Not true. If anyone is foolish it's somebody who says there's evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species but can't provide the evidence. How about you being the very first person on Earth to do just that? Everyone here would love to see it.
Once again, scientists have watched speciation under laboratory conditions. There are known specific mechanisms that support evolutionary change at the cellular level that documented.
Then put up the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You're to trapped in your dogmatic religious beliefs to be reasonable. All you can do is call names and cry like a baby because the evidence evades you. Be a man and put up the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species or shut up.
But they remain the same species. You can see that in the drosaphila (fruit flies). Of course it has to be forced and they end up dying away. But most important, they remain the same species. And are still the same species.
Let's see: 1. No evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. 2. Cry and ranting because you can't find any evidence to support your beliefs. 3. Nothing to contribute to the discussion. Yep, your behavior is embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out.
No, if the new population breeds successfully among itself, but can't do so with members of the original population, then it's a new species. If you think there is some other definition of speciation, cough it up.
None so far....please continue. _Inquisitor_ said: ↑ Evolution is logical conclusions based on empirical ( one can see with his own eyes, touch and measure with instruments) evidence. Therefore it does not belong to natural sciences but to theology, personal views, religion, no different from creationism. No wise person would argue against religion, whether it is evolution or creationism, especially against religious fanatics typing big bold and colorful letters.
That would be redundant considering it’s already been done numerous times by several people (including myself).Instead of presenting any type of scientific argument against the evidence you arbitrarily dismiss it. Your posts in the Religon & Philosophy section confirm that you deny evolution because of your religious beliefs.The vast majority of the faithful have long since adjusted their belief system to accommodate evolution—including the Pope. It’s really not that hard.
You are absolutely wrong. While there is an Intelligent Designer, it is an Artificial Intelligence. You see, we are all living in a giant, super advanced computer simulation, created and run by an A.I. of questionable motives. My suspicion is that the program was designed for entertainment, which is why Trump is president. Everything that looks like evolution or physics is just part of the program. Even gods and religion are just part of the programming. In fact, this world didn't even exist before last week. All of our memories before that point were programmed into our brains.
You're not being fair, politically. The severed head theme is more substantial. Since when does an A.I. have motivation for entertainment? And if so, for whose entertainment? A Being seems to be involved somewhere in the simulation cascade, but there seems to be a shortage of unwholesome overt sexcapades. Maybe it's like, as the saying goes, you can choose your friends but not your relatives. We'll never know who or what to blame. The Programmer is invisible to the program.
Entertainment is one of the biggest industries we have on this world. An artificial intelligence could either be entertaining other beings, or if the A.I. is advanced enough, it could be entertaining itself.
I understand. You put lights on but you have no clue what theories of natural sciences possibly could be used in designing your power plant, transmission lines, wiring your house because you never went to school. But that was you who claimed that you knew evolution had wide use (produce). Let us establish the bottom line: 1. You claimed that evolution has wide (produce) usage, but after 3 circles around you couldn’t demonstrate a single one; yet to the end of your life you will believe and argue that evolution has produce and nothing will sway you from your belief. 2. You claimed that natural sciences is founded on nothing BUT evidence and logic, but you have not been able to back up your claim with anything after being asked 3 times; yet to the end of your life you will believe and argue that natural sciences is founded on nothing BUT evidence and logic. Now you are claiming that a theory of natural science does not have to have any practical use in order to be scientific. I hope it is clear for an independent observer that my thesis that one shouldn’t argue to religious fanatic and that religious fanatics can never answer simple question has being demonstrated live to be true.
NO. I was asked over and over again whether an MD uses evolution in diagnosing a patient. And, I responded by describing why that was a silly question - with attempts to couch that in reasonably polite terms.
No it is not what you were asked. You were asked to show one MD who ever used evolution id diagnosing a decease. You called this request question silly. You were then asked for one single productive usage of evolution. You again called this request silly and stated for theory to be scientific it does not have to have any productive usage. You can call it silly or any other names. Does not change the fact that evolution, as well as creationism or a belief in Flying spaghetti Monster has no practical usage.
It's possible to detect if the patient is deceased without using the theory of evolution - true. But, that has nothing to do with whether the theory is useful. I already described this in previous posts. You need to ask a different question now. This one has deceased.
Keep on dancing, the question was to show a single MD who ever used evolution to diagnose one disease.
Repeating your belief with absolutely nothing to support it, without addressing any objections and questions is a sure proof of a religious fanaticism Thank you for letting me to demonstrate to the public that evolution is nothing than a religion, no different from creationism.
Evolution addresses pretty much all life forms. Suggesting it isn't a natural science couldn't be more ridiculous.
