Liberty U

Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FuzzyMemory said:
I don't get your argument. Evolution is a scientific fact, with as much certainty as the Earth is round. There's no middle ground between reality and fiction. My major gripe is the fact that this school treats intelligent design with as much credibility as scientific evidence, as attested to by our LU alumni here. Evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, only the diversity of life as we see it today.

Please define what your would consider concrete evidence is, because our entire knowledge of the universe can only be obtained through empirical, observable evidence. Anything else is based on faith and superstitious belief.
Click to expand...

I hate to jump into this, but I don't think the presence of evolution is the problem here. The problem some people are having with common scientific belief is the tendency to classify what the unknown as random. Organisms adapt to environmental pressures through random genetic mutations, life on earth came about when organic molecules randomly assembled into a cell, and before any of that, all matter in the universe randomly appeared and began expanded with a bang.
Maybe I am oversimplifying intelligent design, but the theory does not question evolution or the Big Bang. Intelligent design simply says that life could not have originated randomly, but was predesigned by some universal entity.
I'm sure that intelligent design is rarely presented on this basic level, but it does not seem contradictory when presented this way.
 
But this school doesn't advocate intelligent design. It advocates young earth creationism. That's a whole different ball game
 
Buckeye1992 said:
Until someone can prove how the first life on earth came about there will be disagreement. While I fully believe in evolution it is hard for me to comprehend life starting with self replicating single molecule and that all organisms on earth are descended from a single ancestor. Unfortunately we may never know what exactly happened.
Click to expand...
Good thing evolution is not about the origin of the first life, so it has nothing to do with the conversation.
 
FuzzyMemory said:
I don't get your argument. Evolution is a scientific fact, with as much certainty as the Earth is round. There's no middle ground between reality and fiction. My major gripe is the fact that this school treats intelligent design with as much credibility as scientific evidence, as attested to by our LU alumni here. Evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, only the diversity of life as we see it today.

Please define what your would consider concrete evidence is, because our entire knowledge of the universe can only be obtained through empirical, observable evidence. Anything else is based on faith and superstitious belief.
Click to expand...
ding ding ding. Finally someone here understands that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution is the explanation of how it happens, which is the one where scientists still disagree on its details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
 
I guarantee that I know more biblical history than you do, considering the fact that I come from a Christian school...oh wait my school is trash so I guess my knowledge about it is invalid.

My point is...did all of those people make stuff up?
 
RockBanditPhil said:
I guarantee that I know more biblical history than you do, considering the fact that I come from a Christian school...oh wait my school is trash so I guess my knowledge about it is invalid.

My point is...did all of those people make stuff up?
Click to expand...

yes.
 
RockBanditPhil said:
I guarantee that I know more biblical history than you do, considering the fact that I come from a Christian school...oh wait my school is trash so I guess my knowledge about it is invalid.

My point is...did all of those people make stuff up?
Click to expand...

You don't know me. I have 6 years of Catholic School under my belt. I think that they wrote a collection of fables that they believed to have a capital T truth. While much of the Bible is not historically accurate that does not mean that it is worthless or without Truth. You can't seriously be a biblical literalist can you?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
touchpause13 said:
You don't know me. I have 6 years of Catholic School under my belt. I think that they wrote a collection of fables that they believed to have a capital T truth. While much of the Bible is not historically accurate that does not mean that it is worthless or without Truth. You can't seriously be a biblical literalist can you?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this is coming from the guy that makes accusations about Liberty University when he doesn't know the situation. I guess that puts us on the same playing field as far as the validity of our statements?
 
RockBanditPhil said:
Keep in mind that this is coming from the guy that makes accusations about Liberty University when he doesn't know the situation. I guess that puts us on the same playing field as far as the validity of our statements?
Click to expand...

Seeing as im not a guy you really should stop talking like you know me.
 
Vasyl said:
I hate to jump into this, but I don't think the presence of evolution is the problem here. The problem some people are having with common scientific belief is the tendency to classify what the unknown as random. Organisms adapt to environmental pressures through random genetic mutations, life on earth came about when organic molecules randomly assembled into a cell, and before any of that, all matter in the universe randomly appeared and began expanded with a bang.
Maybe I am oversimplifying intelligent design, but the theory does not question evolution or the Big Bang. Intelligent design simply says that life could not have originated randomly, but was predesigned by some universal entity.
I'm sure that intelligent design is rarely presented on this basic level, but it does not seem contradictory when presented this way.
Click to expand...
intelligent design = creationism trying to disguise itself as science (and judged as so by a federal court)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I
 
Vasyl said:
I hate to jump into this, but I don't think the presence of evolution is the problem here. The problem some people are having with common scientific belief is the tendency to classify what the unknown as random. Organisms adapt to environmental pressures through random genetic mutations, life on earth came about when organic molecules randomly assembled into a cell, and before any of that, all matter in the universe randomly appeared and began expanded with a bang.
Maybe I am oversimplifying intelligent design, but the theory does not question evolution or the Big Bang. Intelligent design simply says that life could not have originated randomly, but was predesigned by some universal entity.
I'm sure that intelligent design is rarely presented on this basic level, but it does not seem contradictory when presented this way.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not random. The process that gives rise to variations amongst species is random, but evolution occurs only when those species with specific traits that are favorable are acted on by selection, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic hitchhiking, etc.

Evolution only occurs from one generation to the next through the process of selection. Individual organisms cannot adapt to environmental stressors and pass on those adaptations to their offspring.

The burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove intelligent design, but on ID advocates to present credible evidence for their case, of which they have none so far. If scientists have to disprove every single nonsensical idea ever concocted by the human mind, we would still be looking for evidence against the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and Sarah Palin's brain.
 
FuzzyMemory said:
Evolution is not random. The process that gives rise to variations amongst species is random, but evolution occurs only when those species with specific traits that are favorable are acted on by selection, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic hitchhiking, etc.

Evolution only occurs from one generation to the next through the process of selection. Individual organisms cannot adapt to environmental stressors and pass on those adaptations to their offspring.

The burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove intelligent design, but on ID advocates to present credible evidence for their case, of which they have none so far. If scientists have to disprove every single nonsensical idea ever concocted by the human mind, we would still be looking for evidence against the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and Sarah Palin's brain.
Click to expand...

http://www.gifbin.com/982166
 
FuzzyMemory said:
Evolution is not random. The process that gives rise to variations amongst species is random, but evolution occurs only when those species with specific traits that are favorable are acted on by selection, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic hitchhiking, etc.

Evolution only occurs from one generation to the next through the process of selection. Individual organisms cannot adapt to environmental stressors and pass on those adaptations to their offspring.

The burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove intelligent design, but on ID advocates to present credible evidence for their case, of which they have none so far. If scientists have to disprove every single nonsensical idea ever concocted by the human mind, we would still be looking for evidence against the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and Sarah Palin's brain.
Click to expand...

You stating that ID advocates have no credible evidence for their case just shows that you really have not done your research.
 
Evolutionists have lack of evidence as well...For example, look at that article I posted about the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists say that erosion is the reason for the evolutional gaps in the layers of the Grand Canyon. As the article states, evolutionists have been unable to provide any evidence that erosion was the cause.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Vasyl said:
I hate to jump into this, but I don't think the presence of evolution is the problem here. The problem some people are having with common scientific belief is the tendency to classify what the unknown as random. Organisms adapt to environmental pressures through random genetic mutations, life on earth came about when organic molecules randomly assembled into a cell, and before any of that, all matter in the universe randomly appeared and began expanded with a bang.
Maybe I am oversimplifying intelligent design, but the theory does not question evolution or the Big Bang. Intelligent design simply says that life could not have originated randomly, but was predesigned by some universal entity.
I'm sure that intelligent design is rarely presented on this basic level, but it does not seem contradictory when presented this way.
Click to expand...

errr, no, that's not what intelligent design is at all. Intelligent design looks at a system (eg clotting, complement, the eye) and says that it's so complicated that it could not have arisen through evolution. Except every single time scientists have been able to find precursors to said pathways/structures that prove that such systems/structures were generated by iterative generations improving on the last. Exactly how evolution suggests they would be.

Intelligent design is basically saying "welp, too complicated, it was God" without actually thinking about it or doing actual science.
 
FuzzyMemory said:
Evolution is not random. The process that gives rise to variations amongst species is random, but evolution occurs only when those species with specific traits that are favorable are acted on by selection, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic hitchhiking, etc.

Evolution only occurs from one generation to the next through the process of selection. Individual organisms cannot adapt to environmental stressors and pass on those adaptations to their offspring.
Click to expand...

I don't deny this, but the mutations that enable adaptations are random, as you also say. No one is denying evolution or the environmental pressures that influence evolution. I thought I clearly mentioned that before. I think you are getting caught up in arguing the wrong part of the issue. I wholeheartedly believe in evolution based on natural selection!
I just ask people to be open minded and realize that what we now call random could be attributed to universal factors that we cannot quantify.

FuzzyMemory said:
The burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove intelligent design, but on ID advocates to present credible evidence for their case, of which they have none so far. If scientists have to disprove every single nonsensical idea ever concocted by the human mind, we would still be looking for evidence against the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and Sarah Palin's brain.
Click to expand...

Those are very extreme and incomparable examples. In some ways I agree with you, but I would mention an example like the "brain in a vat" hypothesis. One of my favorite philosophers, G.E. Moore, uses his "Here is one hand" argument to fight philosophical skepticism. He shifts the burden of proof back to the skeptic because seeing one's own hand provides knowledge of the external world.

All of this being said, classifying a phenomenon as random chance does not warrant protection from skepticism. Why does classifying things as random become so scientific and flawless? Could it not instead represent a lack detailed knowledge?

Regardless, to bring the conversation back to Liberty University. I believe that teaching young-earth creationism in the undergrad program (if this is true) is silly and goes against basic scientific knowledge. I think it focuses on maintaining Biblical literalism and religious dogma.
 
Regardless of all that, there certainly are YEC doctors in existence. They made it through med school without having a belief in macro-evolution so it obviously isn't an integral part of the training or occupation. LUCOM has the potential to be as good as the best osteopathic schools. It is up to them to make that happen.
 
I have a question for all of those applying DO but critical of unexplained phenomenon:
Osteopathic philosophy draws on the existence of a life force/energy, which may be influenced by the osteopathic practitioner through OMM. How do you justify studying OMM, if you question the existence of this life force and the value of the treatments? If you actually do not care about osteopathic manipulative medicine, would you admit to that on the interview?
 
Vasyl said:
I have a question for all of those applying DO but critical of unexplained phenomenon:
Osteopathic philosophy draws on the existence of a life force/energy, which may be influenced by the osteopathic practitioner through OMM. How do you justify studying OMM, if you question the existence of this life force and the value of the treatments? If you actually do not care about osteopathic manipulative medicine, would you admit to that on the interview?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your life force assumption and since most DOs don't actually ever practice OMM IRL id say a lot of DO students just see it as a hoop to jump through. Personally I think it has good applications for back and joint pain but that has nothing to do with the force.
 
touchpause13 said:
I disagree with your life force assumption and since most DOs don't actually ever practice OMM IRL id say a lot of DO students just see it as a hoop to jump through. Personally I think it has good applications for back and joint pain but that has nothing to do with the force.
Click to expand...

I think that is a very reasonable and honest answer.

I just see the OMM curriculum as much more than a hoop to jump through. My NMM physician has really changed my outlook on health, even beyond my musculoskeletal health.

I've carried this thread really off track. I apologize.

Back to LUCOM discussion.
 
Vasyl said:
I think that is a very reasonable and honest answer.

I just see the OMM curriculum as much more than a hoop to jump through. My NMM physician has really changed my outlook on health, even beyond my musculoskeletal health.

I've carried this thread really off track. I apologize.

Back to LUCOM discussion.
Click to expand...

👍

I'm only a pre med so my knowledge of it is limited I wouldn't be surprised if I had a different out look on it after/during med school.
 
I'm sincerely scared that some of you might become physicians one day.
 
I haven't seen one thing about "life force" in any of my OMM lectures (nor any of the material we've had that mentions DO philosophy). Where are you getting this?

At the very least, everything we've done so far in OMM has had at LEAST had a kinesiologic/musculoskeletal explanation.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
coolingglasses said:
I haven't seen one thing about "life force" in any of my OMM lectures.
Click to expand...

Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.
 
I think this whole "life force" OMM thing was pulled out of a certain orifice. I've shadowed OMM specialists and I have never heard them refer to a "life force" once. I think you might be confused with jedi school...or maybe you're thinking of thetans, in which case, I hate to break it to you but this isn't a scientology forum. this is for future doctors
 
NontradCA said:
Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.
Click to expand...

guylewis said:
I think this whole "life force" OMM thing was pulled out of a certain orifice. I've shadowed OMM specialists and I have never heard them refer to a "life force" once. I think you might be confused with jedi school...or maybe you're thinking of thetans, in which case, I hate to break it to you but this isn't a scientology forum. this is for future doctors
Click to expand...

That's where my brain was headed 😉
 
coolingglasses said:
I haven't seen one thing about "life force" in any of my OMM lectures (nor any of the material we've had that mentions DO philosophy). Where are you getting this?

At the very least, everything we've done so far in OMM has had at LEAST had a kinesiologic/musculoskeletal explanation.
Click to expand...

During my time as a patient, and later shaddowing, with an nmm/omm specialist, I constantly heard him speaking about concepts like the life force, and about ideas like primary respiration, and dynamic silliness. Have you at least spoken of primary respiration in your class?

He also suggested some books on osteopathy, like Bonnie Gintis' book, Engaging the Movement of Life. This book was absolutely amazing and I recomend it to every pre-osteo student. It hit on major osteopathic concepts like the mesodermal orgin of conective tissue, the importance of the midline and the fluid composition of the connective tissue. Gintis spoke of the life force being present in this fluid, especially the cerebrospinal fluid. I'm currently reading Robert Fullford's Touch of Life and he also talks about the life force and likens it to an electrical potential.

Although I would be surprised to see this in classroom presentation because medical school has to teach you the science, while learning the philosophy is largely up to you.

Where do you go to school, KCOM?
 
Last edited:
Vasyl said:
During my time as a patient, and later shaddowing, with an nmm/omm specialist, I constantly heard him speaking about concepts like the life force, and about ideas like primary respiration, and dynamic silliness. Have you at least spoken of primary respiration in your class?

He also suggested some books on osteopathy, like Bonnie Gintis' book, Engaging the Movement of Life. This book was absolutely amazing and I recomend it to every pre-osteo student. It hit on major osteopathic concepts like the mesodermal orgin of conective tissue, the importance of the midlike and the fluid composition of the connective tissue. Gintis spoke of the life force being present in this fluid, especially the cerebrospinal fluid. I'm currently reading Robert Fullford's Touch of Life and he also talks about the life force and likens it to an electrical potential.

Although I would be surprised to see this in classroom presentation because medical school has to teach you the science, while learning the philosophy is largely up to you.

Where do you go to school, KCOM?
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the Midwest (although about five minutes of digging will probably give me away). We do have an extra morning class on philosophy-type stuff, and our OMM lectures incorporate it as well. I still haven't heard this, but no, we just finished somatic dysfunction/diagnosis.

None of the fellows or physicians have ever spoken of this life force thing here, though. The closest thing is the mind-body-spirit connection, but that's totally incomparable to YEC imho.
 
coolingglasses said:
Somewhere in the Midwest (although about five minutes of digging will probably give me away). We do have an extra morning class on philosophy-type stuff, and our OMM lectures incorporate it as well. I still haven't heard this, but no, we just finished somatic dysfunction/diagnosis.

None of the fellows or physicians have ever spoken of this life force thing here, though. The closest thing is the mind-body-spirit connection, but that's totally incomparable to YEC imho.
Click to expand...

I see. When speaking of the mind-body-spirit connection, did they speak of what they belive to be the spirit? I belive that life force may be another way of saying spirit.
 
Vasyl said:
I see. When speaking of the mind-body-spirit connection, did they speak of what they belive to be the spirit? I belive that life force may be another way of saying spirit.
Click to expand...

Not in particular. I assume that was left to our interpretation. Always assumed it was just a general part of our patients' well-being/outlook/interpretation of the world.
 
guylewis said:
I think this whole "life force" OMM thing was pulled out of a certain orifice. I've shadowed OMM specialists and I have never heard them refer to a "life force" once. I think you might be confused with jedi school...or maybe you're thinking of thetans, in which case, I hate to break it to you but this isn't a scientology forum. this is for future doctors
Click to expand...

You are welcome to read more about the topic from the two books that I have mentioned. Also reading A.T. Still or William Sutherland may be the best way to go since they are the big names in osteopathy and both talk about the spirit or "breath of life. "

Whatever the exact phrase may be, osteopathic philosophy talks about the spirit nature of the individual. I doubt admissions for osteopathic medical schools will appreciate you calling their historic philosophy "jedi school." Sure, your not expected to be worshiping this philosophy, but at least take the time to study it and approach it with a respectful mindset,
 
Vasyl said:
You are welcome to read more about the topic from the two books that I have mentioned. Also reading A.T. Still or William Sutherland may be the best way to go since they are the big names in osteopathy and both talk about the spirit or "breath of life. "

Whatever the exact phrase may be, osteopathic philosophy talks about the spirit nature of the individual. I doubt admissions for osteopathic medical schools will appreciate you calling their historic philosophy "jedi school." Sure, your not expected to be worshiping this philosophy, but at least take the time to study it and approach it with a respectful mindset,
Click to expand...

I don't think that was him interpreting DO philosophy so much as it was his interpretation of your interpretation. Although we've since clarified that a bit.
 
Just wanted to post something I found in their catalog.

"The student must obtain a minimum of 8 on verbal reasoning to be considered for admission unless he/she can establish English as second language or demonstrate extenuating circumstances."

http://www.liberty.edu/media/1290/pdfs/LUCOM_Catalog_2013-2014.pdf

I guess I am out of the running for this school lol.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
verynice said:
Just wanted to post something I found in their catalog.

"The student must obtain a minimum of 8 on verbal reasoning to be considered for admission unless he/she can establish English as second language or demonstrate extenuating circumstances."

http://www.liberty.edu/media/1290/pdfs/LUCOM_Catalog_2013-2014.pdf

I guess I am out of the running for this school lol.
Click to expand...

They don't include that 8 in VR as part of the requirements on their website...If they stick with it and their bichem lab requirement, many will be out of the running.
 
Jesus H. Christ, this thread. No pun intended.

TriagePreMed said:
I'm sincerely scared that some of you might become physicians one day.
Click to expand...

This. The lack of understanding of basic scientific principles at work here is horrifying.
 
sb247 said:
I thought it was us christians that were so intolerant... You trying to take our championship from us? 😉
Click to expand...

I know, Christians are so evil. All they do is set up free health care clinics and soup kitchens in my area. Curse those narrow minded losers.
 
sb247 said:
I thought it was us christians that were so intolerant... You trying to take our championship from us? 😉
Click to expand...

Not sure how thinking that persons seeking careers in applied anatomy and physiology should possess a working knowledge of basic scientific principles and understand how natural mechanisms gave rise to and direct the development of those biological systems makes me intolerant.

Even if we did win the championship of intolerance, you still have us beat at being martyrs. 🙄
 
GypsyHummus said:
I know, Christians are so evil. All they do is set up free health care clinics and soup kitchens in my area. Curse those narrow minded losers.
Click to expand...

Yea, we're painting with such broad strokes to imply that all Christians are evil or even unpleasant. 🙄
Faith based charities and organizations actually do a lot of good to help underserved communities.

We're talking about Young-Earth creationists equating biblical creation myths to observable scientific fact and implications that such a failure to grasp fundamental scientific concepts has on the quality of medical education that can be afforded at such an institution.
 
Last edited:
Carl Seitan said:
We're talking about Young-Earth creationists equating biblical creation myths to observable scientific fact and implications that such a failure to grasp fundamental scientific concepts has on the quality of medical education that can be afforded at such an institution.
Click to expand...

It is not that YECs don't grasp the fundamental science behind it. It is fundamental that adaptations and changes occur. It would be absurd to say otherwise. The evidence is all around us. However, it is the extrapolation of that that YECs have a problem with.

We have never seen a species produce anything other than the kind of animal it produces. From what is observable, in the time frame we have to study, all we know is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc etc. To test that an animal has produced something other than itself would be unfeasible as the hypothesis posits that massive amounts of time are needed to see the change from animal A (from millions of years ago) to what animal B is now.

We cannot observe it, we cannot test it, we cannot falsify it, therefore it is not science.

This is not the only issue that YECs have with the scientific community, but it certainly is a big one. YECs, at least the reasonable ones, do not ignore science. But the most important part of the puzzle is that we are lacking 100% unbiased science.

Science in and of itself is nothing to be "believed" in. However, people tend to be adamant about certain topics. Likely, this post will show several people who prove just that. My point is that those who wholeheartedly have given themselves to the idea macro-evolution has occurred will stop at nothing to perpetuate the idea because there is no better theory on our origins.

YECs are not evil. We just want true science. Science that has been expanded by using the scientific method.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wysdoc
2025-2026 Liberty University (LUCOM)
2
Replies
99
Views
17K
Firing Neuron
Firing Neuron
PapaGuava
2024-2025 Liberty University (LUCOM)
2 3
Replies
138
Views
30K
adnankhawaja
A
D
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT LUCOM (LIBERTY)
Replies
33
Views
15K
Goro
Goro
PapaGuava
2023-2024 Liberty University (LUCOM)
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
402
Views
67K
anonymous1234556
anonymous1234556
S
Liberty
Replies
7
Views
2K
Goro
Goro
Top Bottom