Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,912
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  2. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  3. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Buri likes this.
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  5. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Buri likes this.
  6. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
    ESTT likes this.
  9. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    22,835
    Likes Received:
    5,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ….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.
     
    Buri likes this.
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Cosmo and Buri like this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Buri likes this.
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    22,835
    Likes Received:
    5,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet both evolutionary and genetic theory are used to develop and test new vaccines and antibiotics . We were not talking about the discovery, originally of these things. You can't even track the discussion well, so I suppose it is no surprise that the limit of your abilities to learn about and understand these complicated topics is a copy/paste job that you just now found, using Google.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Buri and WillReadmore like this.
  14. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thank you for at least making that clear. It really bothers me when theists call things like atheism or evolution "religions". In that case, that vague definition (clearly lacking the mention of dieties or the supernatural) will have to be altered. Not that I am arguing it is currently the definition. Also in regards to your "zombie" comment, the same applies to every theist against evolution. They were told and they "feel it's true, so it must be". And I wasn't saying evolution is a scientific theory simply because I was told. It is because I classify religions very differently from non-theistic stories of human origin.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  15. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,912
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did read where I said "modern" biology, correct? And did anyone say that biologists can't disagree?

    Of course, this whole point is moot since no matter how many 19th century biologists you can find that disagree with Darwin, it does not invalidate the ToE. It does not matter that there are things in modern medicine that are not directly connected to evolution, evolution is still true and still the foundation of modern biology (with genetics too, since they work in tandem).
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  16. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
    I asked you a week ago to name a single vaccine, a single antibiotic which which was developed by an evolutionary biologist a with help of theory of evolution to counter the professor of a medical school, the founders of science of antibiotics (Fleming and Chain) and all Google.

    Believers in evolution cannot understand that saying that repeating a religious belief whatever it is with no reference to the reality, to any facts, to anything to back it up is a direct proof that evolution is a crazy religion, crazy cult and nothing more.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018 at 8:20 PM
  17. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.

    Evolutionists have been given quotes and polls telling and showing that there HAVE BEEN NO things in ALL history of medicine which are directly or indirectly connected to evolution.

    They have not pointed to a single thing in medicine which would be directly or indirectly connected to medicine.

    They switched from used in medicine to vague connected in the last hope to escape the reality.

    Evolutionists have been given a link both to a MCAD and a medical school showing that evolution is an insignificant part of biology and is in no way a foundation.

    (I may post a link showing that quite recently evolution was not even taught in public schools.

    And would not be taught if the KGB didn't meddle with the fabric of American society.)

    Believers in evolution cannot understand that saying that repeating a religious belief whatever it is with no reference to the reality, to any facts, to anything to back it up is a direct proof that evolution is a crazy religion, crazy cult and nothing more.
     
  18. Buri

    Buri Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1800

    The national Academy of Sciences would disagree.
     
  19. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You make your own classifications to confirm your system of blind beliefs with no attention or with all intention to disregard the reality.

    How should I call you, a crazy fanatic?

    Your classification "theists against evolution" is in total contradiction to the reality where a head of Human Genome project is a believer in evolution and a born again Christian as well as many other "theists".

    I posted a study confirming the reality.

    But I guess you were not interested in the reality.
     
  20. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63

Share This Page