Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Loudmouth]

I'm asking if they were facts at one time?

Were they, or weren't they?

Are you too embarrassed to answer?

Without using science, try to show that thalidomide is not a prenatal wonder drug.

What, can't do it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was geocentrism a fact at one time? Phlogiston theory? prenatal Thalidomide as a wonder drug? Pluto as our ninth planet? Y2K? It's safe to go back in your homes at L'Aquila? Three Mile Island power-down will just be a routine procedure? smallpox has been wiped out completely?

Were these facts at one time?

Please show that any of these claims are false without using science.

I'm asking if they were facts at one time?

Were they, or weren't they?

Are you too embarrassed to answer?

Without using science, try to show that thalidomide is not a prenatal wonder drug.

What, can't do it?

Now you know why I call many of my threads "challenges," don't you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Beliefs not supported by facts?

Beliefs, not facts.

 

[justlookinla]

Now you know why I call many of my threads "challenges," don't you?

Bad science seems to not bother them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you know why I call many of my threads "challenges," don't you?

I have just given you a challenge.

Show that thalidomide causes birth defects WITHOUT using science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad science seems to not bother them.

Until they're held accountable, like they were in L'Aquila.

They they start foaming at the mouth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have just given you a challenge.

Show that thalidomide causes birth defects WITHOUT using science.

So science lit the fire and science put it out, didn't they?

For the record, I don't think Thalidomide was an accident.

I can't prove it, but then I don't drink.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So science lit the fire and science put it out, didn't they?

For the record, I don't think Thalidomide was an accident.

I can't prove it, but then I don't drink.

Thalidomide was kept from damaging US babies because the pesky government kept asking for evidence before approving its use.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm asking if they were facts at one time?

Were they, or weren't they?

They weren't -- they were beliefs.

Are you too embarrassed to answer?

Why are you ignoring the answer that's already been given to you?

 

[Belk]

A fact or considered a fact? The two are rather different. I'll go with "considered a fact" since I believe that is the trust of your question.

Was geocentrism a fact at one time?

Yes,

Phlogiston theory?

No. Theories are by definition conditional and never considered a fact.

prenatal Thalidomide as a wonder drug?

No, this should be rather easily identified by you as an opinion.

Pluto as our ninth planet?

Yes

Y2K?

Yes

It's safe to go back in your homes at L'Aquila?

Not a fact, again easily seen as an opinion.

Three Mile Island power-down will just be a routine procedure?

Again opinion

smallpox has been wiped out completely?

Nope

Were these facts at one time?

Looks like you get 3 out of 8. That would be a failing grade.

 

[whois]

sfs, do you wish to carry on a dialog about your research? if you do, then you will need to explain things to me. we can start with the following graph you posted.

what is being discussed here? what are the X and Y axis parameters? on the Y axis, is the origin today and the top is Y years ago? i have no clue what is on the X axis, so explain what it is i'm looking at.

 

[whois]

Thalidomide was kept from damaging US babies because the pesky government kept asking for evidence before approving its use.

that isn't exactly true.
thalidomide was indeed prescribed to pregnant women.
it's use today in pregnancies is most likely banned in the US.
this only points out the obvious.
a patient should be aware of what the story is.
a doctor will not go to the library for you.

on the other hand, you don't need to get all crazy about this either.
i take medication that says one of the ingredients is known to cause death in certain circumstances and i've been taking it for years.

so there ya go.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

It's interesting, because during my last doctor's visit, I asked my doctor, a Christian, if he believed in evolution, and he said YES.

I think the vast majority of doctors accept evolution, though the vocality of a few in the minority who do not, such as Dr. Ben Carson, might generate the perception that more reject it. Plus, creationist websites probably do with the facts about the level of support by physicians for evolution what old-school DJs did to records; they spin. One of the most prominent physicians in the country, Dr. Francis Collins, who is the director of the NIH and former director of the Human Genome Project, also is a advocate for the harmonization of religion and science. My dad is the eldest of four boys, of all of whom are physicians and Christians, and they support evolution.

In the future I think the number of physicians in specific and people in the general population who reject evolution will dwindle dramatically. In 2009 the Dean of Harvard Medical School collaborated with physicians at leading medical schools around the world to write a paper titled Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine. The MCAT has also expanded its section testing medical school applicants on evolution, so students preparing for that professional route are likely to study it more extensively in preparation. It's possible to study evolution that throughly and still reject it, but I don't think many do. I honestly don't feel there's a reason for Christians to, as it's more of an issue with exegesis than science.

Be careful with that.

Look for adverse side effects of vegetarianism.

For instance, if you find yourself starting to lean toward the sunlight, I'd change my diet pronto!

Haha. If you have grandkids they must think you're a hoot, AV.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution.

I believe the Antichrist is going to incorporate the hypothesis-theory of abiogenesis into the theory of evolution and make it one unified theory.

Do you not think that by the time the world is into the tribulation that it will be blatantly obvious that the TOE was a shell game and that there is most definitely a lot more dimensions to this universe? Not to mention the whole supernatural events will prove powers far greater than us humans?

 

[JacksBratt]

There is no good reason not to support evolution. We do not live in a static world as if God painted a picture to look at. Our world and the life in it is dynamic and is forever changing over time.

Your post condems your argument. The universe is not a static world. This is the downfall of the TOE.

The speed of light is slowing down.
Galaxies and other objects in the universe show a red shift as well as a blue shift, showing while some are moving away from us, some are moving toward us.
Some planets and moons rotate in one direction while some rotate in another. This contradicts the conservation of angular motion.
These contradicts the Big bang.
The skeletal remains of giant humanoid beings are everywhere. Couple this with the super large constructed objects around the globe as well as the objects that show that previous civilizations had technology that was beyond what we have today, and your TOE is left with a lot of problems.
The total disappointment in the extent of the fossil record. The data is fatally lacking in sufficient data to be evident of the evolution that is proposed.
The world was certainly not static. The atmosphere was different, the barometric pressure was different, climate was different the continents were different, life spans were different and animal kingdom was different.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Your post condems your argument. The universe is not a static world. This is the downfall of the TOE.

The speed of light is slowing down.

No it's not.

Galaxies and other objects in the universe show a red shift as well as a blue shift, showing while some are moving away from us, some are moving toward us.

Not sure if this is true, but why is that a problem?

Some planets and moons rotate in one direction while some rotate in another. This contradicts the conservation of angular motion.

How is this a contradiction of angular motion?

These contradicts the Big bang.

No they don't.

The skeletal remains of giant humanoid beings are everywhere.

No, they're not. Show us documentation of one.

Couple this with the super large constructed objects around the globe as well as the objects that show that previous civilizations had technology that was beyond what we have today, and your TOE is left with a lot of problems.

They didn't have technology beyond what we have today. However, if they did, how is that a problem for the TOE?

The total disappointment in the extent of the fossil record. The data is fatally lacking in sufficient data to be evident of the evolution that is proposed.

Paleontologists and biologists don't think the fossil record is lacking in sufficient data. What information are you privy to that leads you to the conclusion that it isn't sufficient?

The world was certainly not static. The atmosphere was different, the barometric pressure was different, climate was different the continents were different, life spans were different and animal kingdom was different.

How are these claims, if true, problems for the TOE?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Evolution.

I believe the Antichrist is going to incorporate the hypothesis-theory of abiogenesis into the theory of evolution and make it one unified theory.

Antichrist ?

 

[Loudmouth]

So science lit the fire and science put it out, didn't they?

For the record, I don't think Thalidomide was an accident.

I can't prove it, but then I don't drink.

What fire? I see that you avoided my challenge.

Please show that thalidomide causes birth defects WITHOUT using science.

 

[sfs]

sfs, do you wish to carry on a dialog about your research? if you do, then you will need to explain things to me. we can start with the following graph you posted. what is being discussed here? what are the X and Y axis parameters? on the Y axis, is the origin today and the top is Y years ago? i have no clue what is on the X axis, so explain what it is i'm looking at.

It's taken from the forum post I pointed you to before -- the one we're discussing, and the one that you rejected because you distrust statistical analyses, and also apparently because I didn't provide a statistical analysis in it. Here's the text from that post surrounding the figure:

"We can use the same technique, comparing human diversity with human-chimpanzee divergence, to look at various regions of the genome, rather than at different kinds of sites. It is well known that the mutation rate varies somewhat from place to place on the chromosomes. If the hypothesis of common descent is correct, parts of the genome with higher mutation rates should show both a larger divergence between species and more variation within a single species. It is a simple matter to compare the two and see if there really is this kind of correlation.

For the figure, I divided the genome into 1 million nucleotide windows and calculated divergence and diversity within each window. Each point on the plot represents one window, with the human diversity along the x axis and the human-chimpanzee divergence along the y axis. As expected, there is a strong correlation between the two: spots with large divergence are very likely to have large diversity as well. Again, this is a simple prediction from common descent, and I cannot think of any reason why it should be true in a creationist model."

The question is, why is there a relationship between genetic diversity (within humans) and genetic divergence (between humans and chimpanzees), if divergence is not the result of accumulated mutational changes.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many patients do you think your doctor would have if he said he was an atheist? would you be one?

No