Is there a reason why religiously affiliated universities are opening up DO schools?

[GC1000]

Keep on thinking mammals don't fly yo.

Never said bats weren't mammals or they couldn't fly.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

No animals have the ability to think and reason anywhere close to humans. This is likely the most advantageous ability for any species to have and evolution would predict more species would have this ability, but they don't.

You can't say because animals have complex defense features it must be an evolutionary arms race. Prove that any such mechanism exists.

You sound uneducated, ignorant and angry at life.

Just sayin...

 

[GC1000]

So you are stalking me now?
If you would have actually looked carefully at my post history you would see that I mostly post in the lounge so off topic or pictures is part for the course.

Don't stalk, but in general your posts are useless.

 

[GC1000]

You sound uneducated, ignorant and angry at life.

Just sayin...

I am none of those. Thanks for demonstrating my previous point about resorting to name calling instead of facts.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

I am none of those. Thanks for demonstrating my previous point about resorting to name calling instead of facts.

What exactly do you need evidence for that's not already google-able?

 

[touchpause13]

I'm sorry but you are who exactly?
Maybe you are not aware of the basic protocol of this site but it's generally to support one another and be a resource. You are new here, so you get some slack, but being generally unpleasant is looked down in pre osteo.

 

[GC1000]

What exactly do you need evidence for that's not already google-able?

Evidence that species have the ability to evolve. I understand the theory, but there is no evidence for species to evolve. I understand some creatures can become resistant to things of express different traits, but there is never any new genetic information introduced. These creatures already had the genetic information.

 

[medickdb]

..............What..

Animals don't "become" other animals. That's not how evolution works. I don't even.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

What?! My childhood has been one big lie!

 

[GC1000]

I'm sorry but you are who exactly?
Maybe you are not aware of the basic protocol of this site but it's generally to support one another and be a resource. You are new here, so you get some slack, but being generally unpleasant is looked down in pre osteo.

I don't usually post, but have spent a lot of time reading. Generally being respectful of others is appropriate, but many evolutionist don't think this applies to them. when discussing opposing ideas. Evolution is more political than anything else.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Evidence that species have the ability to evolve. I understand the theory, but there is no evidence for species to evolve. I understand some creatures can become resistant to things of express different traits, but there is never any new genetic information introduced. These creatures already had the genetic information.

Let me explain something. Evolution is carried by changes in genetic information. You can look at bacteria which reproduce at super speed in comparison to larger organisms. Bacteria genes can mutate at any given moment and indeed become resistant to certain antibiotics.

Have you heard also of bacterial conjugation? This is where one bacterium introduces NEW genetic information to another bacterium creating a hybrid (hybridization).

You can look at humans slowly evolving today. There are humans who's DNA are changing by being born without an appendix or by being born without ever growing wisdom teeth and both were used generations ago.

Does this answer your question?

 

[touchpause13]

I don't usually post, but have spent a lot of time reading. Generally being respectful of others is appropriate, but many evolutionist don't think this applies to them. when discussing opposing ideas. Evolution is more political than anything else.

You've been here since Dec 2013. Let's not act like you are a veteran here. You are not. And you came in here being disrespectful.

Evolution being the most political? Puleaze. Ever talked about abortion?

 

[Lucca]

You missed the whole point of his post. Actually, it seems you missed the whole point of faith. I would like to believe that you aren't ignorant and realize faith and religion have a purpose in society. It seems to me you instead are too stubborn to admit this.

You must have missed the point where I mentioned I was raised Catholic and that I think faith plays an important role in society.

As far as your french revolution commente im going to redirect you to my previous post about how the chinese revolution was more nuanced and complex an event and it can't be simplified to an atheist murder machine. As far as history being a fantastic predictor I'll again redirect you to Japan, Scandanavia, Most of Northern Europe; in the other direction I'll point you in the direction of the Crusades, the Middle East, the Balkan conflict, most accounts of ethnic cleansing blah blah. If you oversimplify any set of violent events you could make the case of atheism vs. theism causing it, but that's an irresponsible and narrow analysis. That being said, no one ever kills "because atheism" but plenty kill "because my faith"

How the **** are there this many young earth creationists on a pre-med forum.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

You must have missed the point where I mentioned I was raised Catholic and that I think faith plays an important role in society.

As far as your french revolution commente im going to redirect you to my previous post about how the chinese revolution was more nuanced and complex an event and it can't be simplified to an atheist murder machine. As far as history being a fantastic predictor I'll again redirect you to Japan, Scandanavia, Most of Northern Europe; in the other direction I'll point you in the direction of the Crusades, the Middle East, the Balkan conflict, most accounts of ethnic cleansing blah blah. If you oversimplify any set of violent events you could make the case of atheism vs. theism causing it, but that's an irresponsible and narrow analysis. That being said, no one ever kills "because atheism" but plenty kill "because my faith"

How the **** are there this many young earth creationists on a pre-med forum.

Oh you forgot to add all the killings are apparently justified (conveniently) by their deity. How they came to this justification is beyond my comprehension.

 

[GC1000]

Let me explain something. Evolution is carried by changes in genetic information. You can look at bacteria which reproduce at super speed in comparison to larger organisms. Bacteria genes can mutate at any given moment and indeed become resistant to certain antibiotics.

Have you heard also of bacterial conjugation? This is where one bacterium introduces NEW genetic information to another bacterium creating a hybrid (hybridization).

You can look at humans slowly evolving today. There are humans who's DNA are changing by being born without an appendix or by being born without ever growing wisdom teeth and both were used generations ago.

Does this answer your question?

Being born without an appendix would be losing information, not gaining. There is scientific evidence the appendix has uses. We can function without it, but that doesn't mean its not important. We could get by with one arm, but that doesn't mean we will lose that too.

 

[bionerd89]

I don't usually post, but have spent a lot of time reading. Generally being respectful of others is appropriate, but many evolutionist don't think this applies to them. when discussing opposing ideas. Evolution is more political than anything else.

Out of curiosity, if you met people that told you they were atheist or non-Christian, do you try to "educate" them about your beliefs?

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Being born without an appendix would be losing information, not gaining. There is scientific evidence the appendix has uses. We can function without it, but that doesn't mean its not important. We could get by with one arm, but that doesn't mean we will lose that too.

I never defined evolution as strictly gaining anything.

Ok I repeat, evolution is not defined as "gaining" genetic information. It is a randomized genetic mutation that causes a physiological and/or anatomical change in the organism that can either enhance or degrade their quality of life in their current environment.

Ok sure appendix has a function in the immune system. But it doesn't mean a genetic mutation hasn't occurred that causes people to be born without it. This is essentially evolution. People constantly think evolution is always evolving with a new advantage. That's not how it works. Advantage is random.

But there are other examples I've used like wisdom teeth and bacteria. There are plenty more substantial examples that can be looked up through google.

And I don't feel like looking them up myself to tell you about them when you can be proactive in your own learning experience. Just know they are there when you want the proof you seek.

Google "proofs of evolution" or look through berkeleys website and etc. No one is hiding this information from you.

Lastly, based on your replies, you don't seem to have a solid definition or understanding of evolution....it's really pointless to debate this with scientific people because if you want to debate something and be respected in your debate---knowing what you're debating is the first step.

Open up as textbook, learn and know the basic definition of evolution ASAP.

 

[bionerd89]

This argument is so pointless...people aren't going to change their beliefs even when they are hit in the face with proofs or facts...my only concerns is whether having certain beliefs will impede their job as a physician...I think this can be a good learning experience for everyone since not all your patients are going to share the same beliefs as you..it requires a certain level of professionalism to be open-minded and impartial.

 

[CSqueed]

This argument is so pointless...people aren't going to change their beliefs even when they are hit in the face with proofs or facts...my only concerns is whether having certain beliefs will impede their job as a physician...I think this can be a good learning experience for everyone since not all your patients are going to share the same beliefs as you..it requires a certain level of professionalism to be open-minded and impartial.

Don't throw scientific literature at him. He will just throw the bible at you.

 

[Haxx]

Being born without an appendix would be losing information, not gaining. There is scientific evidence the appendix has uses. We can function without it, but that doesn't mean its not important. We could get by with one arm, but that doesn't mean we will lose that too.

:troll:

 

[GC1000]

I never defined evolution as strictly gaining anything.

Ok I repeat, evolution is not defined as "gaining" genetic information. It is a randomized genetic mutation that causes a physiological and/or anatomical change in the organism that can either enhance or degrade their quality of life in their current environment.

Ok sure appendix has a function in the immune system. But it doesn't mean a genetic mutation hasn't occurred that causes people to be born without it. This is essentially evolution. People constantly think evolution is always evolving with a new advantage. That's not how it works. Advantage is random.

But there are other examples I've used like wisdom teeth and bacteria. There are plenty more substantial examples that can be looked up through google.

And I don't feel like looking them up myself to tell you about them when you can be proactive in your own learning experience. Just know they are there when you want the proof you seek.

Google "proofs of evolution" or look through berkeleys website and etc. No one is hiding this information from you.

Lastly, based on your replies, you don't seem to have a solid definition or understanding of evolution....it's really pointless to debate this with scientific people because if you want to debate something and be respected in your debate---knowing what you're debating is the first step.

Open up as textbook, learn and know the basic definition of evolution ASAP.

acquiring new genetic information would be necessary for most of the evolutionary processes, but it has not been proven possible. No evidence exists!

 

[GC1000]

You've been here since Dec 2013. Let's not act like you are a veteran here. You are not. And you came in here being disrespectful.

Evolution being the most political? Puleaze. Ever talked about abortion?

I meant that evolution was more political than scientific. All the name calling and other rude behaviors on here illustrate my point. You can't respectfully disagree, it must be in an arrogant manner.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

acquiring new genetic information would be necessary for most of the evolutionary processes, but it has not been proven possible. No evidence exists!

Sir, you can easily cause evolution by losing or gaining or simply changing existing genetic information. You need to check your references.

Secondly, I just gave you a clear example of when information is gained (I.e. Bacterial conjugation). How can you say no evidence exists even still?

Lastly, species are constantly gaining new genetic information from each other through different populations. Wanna hear an example? Interracial human sex. You fill in those blanks.

If you still say none of the above counts as "gaining" new information, you either need to go back to school or elaborate what you feel is defined as "gaining" to your standards satisfaction.

 

[Haxx]

acquiring new genetic information would be necessary for most of the evolutionary processes, but it has not been proven possible. No evidence exists!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234768680748X

Control+F genetic information. That took like 2 seconds. Didn't even need to buy an article.

 

[touchpause13]

I meant that evolution was more political than scientific. All the name calling and other rude behaviors on here illustrate my point. You can't respectfully disagree, it must be in an arrogant manner.

 

[Roxas]

How the **** are there this many young earth creationists on a pre-med forum.

I would like to just point out that religious =/= YEC, and there seems to be just 1

 

[GC1000]

Sir, you can easily cause evolution by losing or gaining or simply changing existing genetic information. You need to check your references.

Secondly, I just gave you a clear example of when information is gained (I.e. Bacterial conjugation). How can you say no evidence exists even still?

Lastly, species are constantly gaining new genetic information from each other through different populations. Wanna hear an example? Interracial human sex. You fill in those blanks.

If you still say none of the above counts as "gaining" new information, you either need to go back to school or elaborate what you feel is defined as "gaining" to your standards satisfaction.

Bacterial conjugation isn't creating new genetic information, the information already existsand is being exchanged. I'm talking about the new genes necessary to cause one type of creature to become another. The new genetic information necessary to fulfill the particles to people evolutionary model.

 

[didymus]

I would like to just point out that religious =/= YEC, and there seems to be just 1

This.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Bacterial conjugation isn't creating new genetic information, the information already existsand is being exchanged. I'm talking about the new genes necessary to cause one type of creature to become another. The new genetic information necessary to fulfill the particles to people evolutionary model.

See that's where you are misguiding yourself. You are not thinking of evolution correctly. I mentioned to you previously when bacteria DNA mutate and this becoming new instructions for the body. This is considered new because the instructions have changed.

If you have a genetic code that is A-B-C-C and it makes you the color blue and suddenly you lose the "B" and your code becomes "A-C-C" and causes you to turn green it is considered new information.

If through DNA replication your enzymes accidentally add an additional "A" and your new code is "A-A-B-C-C" and it instructs you to turn pink, you have gained a nucleotide that causes your code to be new.

Biology functions through the Butterfly Effect. One small change causes another small change at some point which in turn causes another change. Then after some period in time you "zoom out" on this picture and see that a huge change happened from all the smaller changes. (That's how the enzymes and substrates atomically interact if you ever looked at this through organic reactions in class)

Then suddenly these additive changes causes you to either be better adapted to the environment or causes you to die off. When I say "you" I mean your species. Every offspring generation is slowly contributing to the bigger picture.
Once again, through these additive changes, many generations into the future, these offsprings may still or may not look like their ancestors (thus the simplified human evolutionary model is formed for the laymen to better grasp this complex and multidimensional process).

Like I mentioned if you introduce this changed ( new) information through sexual reproduction you are allowing future offsprings to gain this new information.

If you are asking for brand new amino acids or something special that is created outta nowhere for evolutionary events then you are not going to get it because that only exists in fantasy.
Unfortunately, evolution works off existing genetic material and either removes nucleotides, adds Nucleotides or simply changes the existing combination by keeping the same reading frame and just changing the amino acid produced. It is slow, boring and sometimes mundane and even useless if it makes no difference to environmental adaptation.

 

[GC1000]

See that's where you are misguiding yourself. You are not thinking of evolution correctly. I mentioned to you previously when bacteria DNA mutate and this becoming new instructions for the body. This is considered new because the instructions have changed.

If you have a genetic code that is A-B-C-C and it makes you the color blue and suddenly you lose the "B" and your code becomes "A-C-C" and causes you to turn green it is considered new information.

If through DNA replication your enzymes accidentally add an additional "A" and your new code is "A-A-B-C-C" and it instructs you to turn pink, you have gained a nucleotide that causes your code to be new.

Biology functions through the Butterfly Effect. One small change causes another small change at some point which in turn causes another change. Then after some period in time you "zoom out" on this picture and see that a huge change happened from all the smaller changes. (That's how the enzymes and substrates atomically interact if you ever looked at this through organic reactions in class)

Then suddenly these additive changes causes you to either be better adapted to the environment or causes you to die off. When I say "you" I mean your species. Every offspring generation is slowly contributing to the bigger picture.
Once again, through these additive changes, many generations into the future, these offsprings may still or may not look like their ancestors (thus the simplified human evolutionary model is formed for the laymen to better grasp this complex and multidimensional process).

Like I mentioned if you introduce this changed (as new) information through sexual reproduction you are allowing future offsprings to gain this new information.

If you are asking for brand new amino acids or something special that is created outta nowhere for evolutionary events then you are not going to get it because that only exists in fantasy. Unfortunately, evolution is slow, boring and sometimes mundane and even useless if it makes no difference to environmental adaptation.

I appreciate your viewpoint and respect your viewpoint but disagree. I don't believe this explanation satisfies non-living matter becoming living, cells becoming more complex individuals and continually evolving into where we are today. I'm not going to post anything more regarding debating evolution vs. creationism. Ultimately it is 100% irrelevant to become an excellent physician as Didymus showed earlier.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

I appreciate your viewpoint and respect your viewpoint but disagree. I don't believe this explanation satisfies non-living matter becoming living, cells becoming more complex individuals and continually evolving into where we are today. I'm not going to post anything more regarding debating evolution vs. creationism. Ultimately it is 100% irrelevant to become an excellent physician as Didymus showed earlier.

Then I am convinced you haven't taken college biology where all these questions are answered. When you take college biology, you'll learn about:

1. non-living matter becoming matter (this is basic science here--what premed doesn't know this stuff)

2. Cells becoming more complex (Mitochondrial and Chloroplast endosymbiosis).

3. Cells gathering into tissues and differentiating (cell biology).

You can't be premed. There's just no way you've taken biology and chemistry..

What exactly do you believe in???

 

[Lucca]

I appreciate your viewpoint and respect your viewpoint but disagree. I don't believe this explanation satisfies non-living matter becoming living, cells becoming more complex individuals and continually evolving into where we are today. I'm not going to post anything more regarding debating evolution vs. creationism. Ultimately it is 100% irrelevant to become an excellent physician as Didymus showed earlier.

And this is why enabling future physicians to hold onto these sorts of unfounded arguments and untenable positions is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[stlrams22]

Because any unbiased view of the evidence necessitates accepting that evolution is science and a fact, and this is not an anti-religious comment. When I was a teenager before any science curriculum, I believed in (a form of) creationism. My family was not the 6k year old hardcore fanatics, but I was taught that god created the earth and Adam and Eve were real people. I do worry what else a person that buys into the creationist lie can buy into. Don't tell me that's crazy to believe since we've seen it in Fox News guest doctors like Keith Ablow. The person we're discussing right now obviously has the brain capacity to learn and apply the knowledge to certain tasks, but they certainly haven't learned the spirit of science which teaches us to confront reality as the facts tell us instead of finding the facts to fit our preconceived notions. As for "predicting you," I meant as your ability to evaluate evidence in an unbiased way.

Have you ever evaluated evidence in an unbiased way? I highly doubt it, instead you have learned this evolutionary fairy tale from your college.

 

[GC1000]

Then I am convinced you haven't taken college biology where all these questions are answered. When you take college biology, you'll learn about:

1. non-living matter becoming matter (this is basic science here--what premed doesn't know this stuff)

2. Cells becoming more complex (Mitochondrial and Chloroplast endosymbiosis).

3. Cells gathering into tissues and differentiating (cell biology).

You can't be premed. There's just no way you've taken biology and chemistry..

What exactly do you believe in???

Again, you attempt to belittle me. Not only have I taken all the premed classes, I have got an A in every single one (and multiple acceptances). Thanks for the insult.

 

[GC1000]

And this is why enabling future physicians to hold onto these sorts of unfounded arguments and untenable positions is dangerous and irresponsible.

Why specifically, evidence?

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Have you ever evaluated evidence in an unbiased way? I highly doubt it, instead you have learned this evolutionary fairy tale from your college.

Most of them do not want to evaluate. They want YOU to do all the work for them so that they can easily say "oh that's not proof enough" because they are too scared to actually think that you might actually be right based on evidence presented.

They are taught that if they question their beliefs, they are going to be punished by an angry deity because they put their faith into question.

I say, if these deities didn't want humans to observe what's in front of them and question their surroundings, why allow them to see, hear, touch in the first place? Or allow them to think at all?

Lastly, religion was created by humans for humans. There's nothing holy about that. What makes Zeus or Athena or Shiva any less real than Jehovah?

Leave science to scientists and keep religion out of it thanks.

 

[stlrams22]

Most of them do not want to evaluate. They want YOU to do all the work for them so that they can easily say "oh that's not proof enough" because they are too scared to actually think that you might actually be right based on evidence presented.

They are taught that if they question their beliefs, they are going to be punished by an angry deity because they put their faith into question.

I say, if these deities didn't want humans to observe what's in front of them and question their surroundings, why allow them to see, hear, touch in the first place? Or allow them to think at all?

Lastly, religion was created by humans for humans. There's nothing holy about that. What makes Zeus or Athena any less real than Jehovah?

Here is an interesting study.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/n...t-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/#.UwJW8U2YZdg

I know you don't like to argue facts based on the previous posts, but most physicians DO believe in God. You are a minority, a loud minority.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Here is an interesting study.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/n...t-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/#.UwJW8U2YZdg

I know you don't like to argue facts based on the previous posts, but most physicians DO believe in God. You are a minority, a loud minority.

"55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

Sigh. Thanks for the article rams.

 

[stlrams22]

"55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

Sigh. Thanks for the article rams.

Does it say it causes them to be worse or incompetent? Everyone's beliefs influence how they practice medicine. Your belief is atheism, it will affect how you practice.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Does it say it causes them to be worse or incompetent? Everyone's beliefs influence how they practice medicine. Your belief is atheism, it will affect how you practice.

Does it say anywhere on this thread that I made the claim physicians are less competent if they are religiously affiliated? I don't think so. Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[stlrams22]

Does it say it causes them to be worse or incompetent? Everyone's beliefs influence how they practice medicine. Your belief is atheism, it will affect how you practice.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38866495/ns/health-health_care/#.UwJZPE2YZdg

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

 

[stlrams22]

Does it say anywhere on this thread that I made the claim physicians are less competent if they are religiously affiliated? I don't think so. Don't get ahead of yourself.

Then what is the point of that post?

 

[touchpause13]

Yes most physicians are religious, but correct me if I'm wrong, they are less religious than the rest of the population

 

[Dr. Zombie]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38866495/ns/health-health_care/#.UwJZPE2YZdg

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

My main priority is to save lives. I would not euthanize. If my terminally ill patient wants to die and euthanasia is legal in the state, I would refer them to a physician who is comfortable injecting them. After all, my decisions as a physician should be in the best interest of the adult and consenting patient who is still capable to make decisions on their own.

Thanks for the articles though

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Then what is the point of that post?

My point was using religion to debate evolution when there are plenty of evidence in support of evolution and none in the support of Creationism.

Is this clear to you now?

 

[didymus]

Most of them do not want to evaluate. They want YOU to do all the work for them so that they can easily say "oh that's not proof enough" because they are too scared to actually think that you might actually be right based on evidence presented....

They are taught that if they question their beliefs, they are going to be punished by an angry deity because they put their faith into question.

Who are "they"? I've never personally met anyone who has been taught that. Do all religions teach their adherents this? If not, what church, denomination, or religion specifically does?

I say, if these deities didn't want humans to observe what's in front of them and question their surroundings, why allow them to see, hear, touch in the first place? Or allow them to think at all?

I completely agree with you here. As a religious person myself, this is one of the cornerstone beliefs for me. God does want me to observe, to fully utilize my empirical senses to experience and grow in knowledge of the world/universe. My conviction here serves as a powerful motivator for me to delve deeply into scientific study. If I believe "all truth is God's truth," then I cannot reasonably fear the truths that are unearthed through the study and practice of science.

Lastly, religion was created by humans for humans. There's nothing holy about that. What makes Zeus or Athena or Shiva any less real than Jehovah?

This is a question for a different thread, I think.

Leave science to scientists and keep religion out of it thanks.

This is something I can get behind. That said, you will never get religious people out of science. It seems that this fact may be difficult for you to accept.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Who are "they"? I've never personally met anyone who has been taught that. Do all religions teach their adherents this? If not, what church, denomination, or religion specifically does?



I completely agree with you here. As a religious person myself, this is one of the cornerstone beliefs for me. God does want me to observe, to fully utilize my empirical senses to experience and grow in knowledge of the world/universe. My conviction here serves as a powerful motivator for me to delve deeply into scientific study. If I believe "all truth is God's truth," then I cannot reasonably fear the truths that are unearthed through the study and practice of science.



This is a question for a different thread, I think.



This is something I can get behind. That said, you will never get religious people out of science. It seems that this fact may be difficult for you to accept.

I was raised Catholic and it was in my best interest to keep quiet during those times if I questioned the bible. Perhaps I was molded by my own experiences in meeting malignant religious people.

I agree. I said too much. I just get worked up when I post paragraphs after paragraphs and it's apparently still not convincing to that person about evolution---and I end up realizing they have no idea how evolution works based on their counter-responses after allegedly taking all their premed classes and Acing them---allegedly.

 

[touchpause13]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38866495/ns/health-health_care/#.UwJZPE2YZdg

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

What's your point?

 

[didymus]

I was raised Catholic and it was in my best interest to keep quiet during those times if I questioned the bible. Perhaps I was molded by my own experiences in meeting malignant religious people.

I agree. I said too much. I just get worked up when I post paragraphs after paragraphs and it's apparently still not convincing to that person about evolution---and I end up realizing they have no idea how evolution works based on their counter-responses after allegedly taking all their premed classes and Acing them---allegedly.

Fair enough I think many of us have gotten worked up in this thread. No harm no foul.

 

[bionerd89]

Here is an interesting study.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/n...t-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/#.UwJW8U2YZdg

I know you don't like to argue facts based on the previous posts, but most physicians DO believe in God. You are a minority, a loud minority.

People always argue that their religion is real and can explain the origins of humans but what makes their religion more real or true than other people's religion.

 

[Cipher9422]

It is difficult to argue with anti-religious people spewing their hatred. They have been indoctrinated by carefully selected information. I find it amazing that people who study biology believe everything happened by chance. It seems the have lost their ability to think critically.

I have often thought the same.

I don't think changing the months really did all that much. The French throughout the revolution remained Catholics and any attempt to remove Christian iconography from their minds essentially failed absolutely.

You need to read up on your history. The proponents of the revolution tried to dissolve all religion. Going as far as to disband countless monasteries throughout France.