medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

Jamin4422 · Nov 16, 2012

Tiberius said:
The evidence for evolution is out there,

Not really. Calling anything and everything evolution is not evidence for Darwin's theory. That is the parts of the theory that they still claim are true and not the parts that they admit were not true.

To be sure there is lots and lots and lots of stuff. Whole libraries full of books on what you call evolution. Still no matter how you slice it and dice it: Creationism is still a better explanation for the evidence.

God said: Let there be life and there was life. Mutations had NOTHING to do with it. No matter how much you want to call anything and everything a mutation.

Tomk80 · Nov 16, 2012

Avner said:
I'm a creationist. I have the right to believe so. Anyways, creationism or evolutionism has nothing to do with God's existence. God doesn't exist exclusively because of creationism ideas. If there's a God, both theories don't necessarily exclud God.

You have the right to believe so. And if you are in medical school and refuse to learn about evolution, the medical school has the obligation to send you on your way.

TemperateSeaIsland · Nov 17, 2012

If they fail the module(s) that include evolution they should be removed from the course. At my uni course if you failed an exam in a core module you'd be given one resit, if you passed you'd be given a 40% mark (what was needed to count as pass) regardless of how well you did in the resit (score a 90%, tough you were getting 40%) and if you failed your life as a student was essentially over.

sfs · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Of course they are in it for the money. Otherwise they would provide their service or product for free. To be sure many people love what they do, esp educators. They would be glad to do it for free. But you still have the reality in life of having to pay the bills. If you have not noticed the neighborhood that these people gather in, tend to be a very expensive place to live.

"Earning a salary while doing something you believe in" is not the same thing as "in it for the money". Nice way to backpedal on your slur.

Ken-1122 · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Not really. Calling anything and everything evolution is not evidence for Darwin's theory.

Nobody calls anything and everything evolution; except maybe some of those trying to discredit it

Jamin4422 said:
That is the parts of the theory that they still claim are true and not the parts that they admit were not true.

Really? What parts of the theory do they claim are not true?

Jamin4422 said:
To be sure there is lots and lots and lots of stuff. Whole libraries full of books on what you call evolution. Still no matter how you slice it and dice it: Creationism is still a better explanation for the evidence.

Then why hasnt anyone published anything on creationism for peer review? Evolution has! If creationist wants to be taken seriously in the scientific community, you have to use the same system all other claims use

K

RickG · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Not really. Calling anything and everything evolution is not evidence for Darwin's theory.

No one but creationists say scientists say that. Actual scientists who study and research in one of the many fields that contribute to the theory of evolution do not say that.

That is the parts of the theory that they still claim are true and not the parts that they admit were not true.

Would you please cite one part of Darwin's theory that scientists say is not true.

To be sure there is lots and lots and lots of stuff. Whole libraries full of books on what you call evolution. Still no matter how you slice it and dice it: Creationism is still a better explanation for the evidence.

Just a minute Jamin. As a GAP person you confirm that evolution occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That puts you into the category of a person accepting evolution as a fact.

God said: Let there be life and there was life. Mutations had NOTHING to do with it. No matter how much you want to call anything and everything a mutation.

Mutations can be good as well, as the theory of evolution demonstrates.

sfs · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
To be sure there is lots and lots and lots of stuff. Whole libraries full of books on what you call evolution. Still no matter how you slice it and dice it: Creationism is still a better explanation for the evidence.

If creationism is the better explanation for the evidence, why have creationists been hiding this fact for the past 150 years? When confronted by actual evidence, creationists dodge, weave, try to change the subject, and in general do anything else but offer an explanation for it. Why is that? Are they just coy?

Jamin4422 · Nov 17, 2012

sfs said:
Why is that? Are they just coy?

Coy is a good word because there clearly is a double standard. It is ok to base Darwin's theory on inferential reasoning, but it is not ok to base Intelligent Design on inferential reasoning. Evolutionists are very slick. They prove things to be true and claim that is evidence for Evolution when what they prove really has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of decent through modification. For example they prove that the species adapt or that there is change. They claim that is evidence for decent through modification and it is not. The only way this could be considered is though inferential reasoning. The very reasoning they reject when they reject ID. As I have said many times, when they stand before the Judgement Throne of God their glass alibis will shatter. The very thing they trust in will stand in judgement against them.

CabVet · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Coy is a good word because there clearly is a double standard. It is ok to base Darwin's theory on inferential reasoning, but it is not ok to base Intelligent Design on inferential reasoning. Evolutionists are very slick. They prove things to be true and claim that is evidence for Evolution when what they prove really has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of decent through modification. For example they prove that the species adapt or that there is change. They claim that is evidence for decent through modification and it is not. The only way this could be considered is though inferential reasoning. The very reasoning they reject when they reject ID. As I have said many times, when they stand before the Judgement Throne of God their glass alibis will shatter. The very thing they trust in will stand in judgement against them.

You are the only slick one here. Why are you talking about intelligent design since it is not compatible with your own ideas? How about you present some evidence for intelligent design?

Descent with modification (not through modification as you mention) can be observed in real time. Your progeny is not exactly like you, are they? That is descent with modification.

Jamin4422 · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:
Would you please cite one part of Darwin's theory that scientists say is not true.

We go over the same thing every day. Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics.

[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Stephen Jay Gould replaced Darwin's gradualism with punctuated equilibrium. This is actually post neo Darwinism. But evolutionists are resistant to having to use new terms. Even though in 1984 Ernst Mayr said: "the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong".

So you have Harvard professors who do not agree with each other what to call the theory, much less on a definition of what the theory is. Your theory about change is in a constant state of change. That is why I refer to it as the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. Don't like what is on the menu this week? No problem they will have a whole new theory next week.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Coy is a good word because there clearly is a double standard. It is ok to base Darwin's theory on inferential reasoning, but it is not ok to base Intelligent Design on inferential reasoning.

You're comparing valid deduction with faulty deduction. ID makes claims, and those claims have been tested, and the tests have failed to corroborate said claims. Evolution makes claims, and those claims have been tested, and the tests have corroborated said claims.

It's not a double standard. We apply the same standard, and, lo and behold, ID fails. Do you know why? Because it was never concieved as a genuine scientific endavour. From the outset, it's been a political ploy by religious groups to shove dogma into school curricula. The existence of the Wedge document is just the delicious cherry that ices the rotten cake.

Jamin4422 said:
Evolutionists are very slick. They prove things to be true and claim that is evidence for Evolution when what they prove really has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of decent through modification. For example they prove that the species adapt or that there is change. They claim that is evidence for decent through modification and it is not.

Incorrect. A cursory look at the very definition of evolution shows that the example of an adapting species fits evolution to a tee.

Jamin4422 said:
The only way this could be considered is though inferential reasoning. The very reasoning they reject when they reject ID. As I have said many times, when they stand before the Judgement Throne of God their glass alibis will shatter. The very thing they trust in will stand in judgement against them.

It does amuse me when the religious threaten divine punishment on someone simply because they hold a particular scientific belief. It's telling that you don't get evolutionists doing the same...

(Oh, and so the point doesn't sail over your head, I'm implying that there's a reason we don't need to resort to scare-tactics. "Yo' gunna burn in Hell!" is the last resort of the weak minded, not the scientifically literate.)

Jamin4422 · Nov 17, 2012

CabVet said:
How about you present some evidence for intelligent design?

I have nothing to add to Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Stephen Meyers presents a [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]comprehensive DNA-based argument for intelligent design. There is no reason for me to read it and explain it to you. You can read it for yourself if your interested.

[/FONT]

Descent with modification (not through modification as you mention) can be observed in real time.

You can show descent and you can show modification. That does not prove Darwin's theory. God knows the end from the beginning. So all the information was there in the beginning. That is why He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Moses wrote over 3500 years ago about events that still have not taken place.

You do have evo devo and they do say you will always end up with the same result anywhere you go in the universe because the elements are all the same and you have to follow all the natural laws that regulate those elements. That is NOT what Gould says. His belief was if you start all over again at the beginning the results would not be the same at all. Even to the point where man would not exist as we now know him. With Gould you end up with a planet of the apes type of a situation.

46AND2 · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Coy is a good word because there clearly is a double standard. It is ok to base Darwin's theory on inferential reasoning, but it is not ok to base Intelligent Design on inferential reasoning. Evolutionists are very slick. They prove things to be true and claim that is evidence for Evolution when what they prove really has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of decent through modification. For example they prove that the species adapt or that there is change. They claim that is evidence for decent through modification and it is not. The only way this could be considered is though inferential reasoning. The very reasoning they reject when they reject ID. As I have said many times, when they stand before the Judgement Throne of God their glass alibis will shatter. The very thing they trust in will stand in judgement against them.

You have to have evidence to infer something. ID doesn't have anything with which we can make any inference.

Jamin4422 · Nov 17, 2012

Wiccan_Child said:
You're comparing valid deduction with faulty deduction.

No one considers ID to be "faulty". The simply believe [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]it is not testable empirically, and has no potential to ever be falsified. [/FONT]

It does amuse me when the religious threaten divine punishment on someone simply because they hold a particular scientific belief.

You do not understand Justice at all. God's scale of justice is perfectly balanced. Put all the good you do on one side and all the harm you do on the other side of the scale and tell me what direction the scale tilts. What you sow you shall reap. What goes around comes around. What harm we do to others is going to come back on us. No one gets away with nothing. There is a price to pay and in the end everyone will pay the price or enter into the reward. Only Jesus paid the price for us so that God did not even spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.

Do you want the rest of the story or is this enough for now?

Jamin4422 · Nov 17, 2012

46AND2 said:
You have to have evidence to infer something. ID doesn't have anything with which we can make any inference.

Of course it does: God said it, so that settles it, what more inference do you want?
Are you trying to say God did not say it? IE that this is not in the Bible?

46AND2 · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Of course it does: God said it, so that settles it, what more inference do you want?
Are you trying to say God did not say it? IE that this is not in the Bible?

You have no evidence that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, it cannot be used to infer anything about the diversity of life.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 17, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
No one considers ID to be "faulty". The simply believe [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]it is not testable empirically, and has no potential to ever be falsified.

Of course it can be falsified. ID claims that[/FONT] the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian eye, and the clotting cascade, are irreducibly complex - they're not. ID claims that being an irreducibly complex system precludes having been evolved - it doesn't.

And remember, your original claim was that the criticism levelled against ID is a double standard - it's not. The same standard is applied, and evolution passes it, ID doesn't.

Jamin4422 said:
You do not understand Justice at all.

Irrelevant - it was your claim, not mine, that one's belief in evolution will count against them in this 'divine court'. My retort is that such claims are amusing.

Jamin4422 said:
God's scale of justice is perfectly balanced. Put all the good you do on one side and all the harm you do on the other side of the scale and tell me what direction the scale tilts.

Overwhelmingly towards the good side.

Jamin4422 said:
What you sow you shall reap. What goes around comes around. What harm we do to others is going to come back on us. No one gets away with nothing. There is a price to pay and in the end everyone will pay the price or enter into the reward. Only Jesus paid the price for us so that God did not even spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.

So God decided to sacrifice himself to himself to assuage himself and convince himself to lift the punishment he himself decided to enact.

Mhm.

Jamin4422 said:
Do you want the rest of the story or is this enough for now?

I've already heard the story, and it's as vile now as it's ever been. Infinite suffering for the crime of being born human, or for not being of the right religion, or for "not having Jesus in your heart", or for not "declaring Jesus as your lord and saviour", or whatever, is not compatible with an all-powerful, all-loving creator.

Then again, if memory serves, you believe in annihilationism - or is that someone else?

46AND2 · Nov 17, 2012

Wiccan_Child said:
I've already heard the story, and it's as vile now as it's ever been. Infinite suffering for the crime of being born human, or for not being of the right religion, or for "not having Jesus in your heart", or for not "declaring Jesus as your lord and saviour", or whatever, is not compatible with an all-powerful, all-loving creator.

Yes, don't forget the denominations which also require you to be baptized, and/or show good works, and/or speak in tongues...and especially don't forget that even if you get all that stuff right, but god makes you gay, your still damned.

florida2 · Nov 17, 2012

46AND2 said:
It's not how Christians do it, either.

Some Christians, I hasten to add!

46AND2 · Nov 17, 2012

florida2 said:
Some Christians, I hasten to add!

I only mirrored jamin's generalization.

But of course you are correct.

medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

Member

Titleless

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Member

Question everything

Member

Contributor

Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Member

Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Contributor

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency