Liberty U

[abolt18]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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.

+1 well written.

 

[Escape_Goat]

So you have seen the video of the christian syrian bishop being beheaded then?

Errrr... no.

 

[TriagePreMed]

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.

No, this just proves how ignorant you and the rest of YEC are. This is no different than saying that theory of gravity is not science because we can't create an entirely new universe and put gravity on it. If you can't understand that evolution is simply what you call "macroevolution = microevolution + time," you are ignorant of the facts.

Your entire statement was a play on words to have your cake an eat it. On one hand you want to accept microevolution + time exist but on the other you want to make it seem macroevolution is something else, such as some baseless extrapolation. It simply is not. One specific form of evidence is endogenous retroviruses: http://youtu.be/qh7OclPDN_s another is transposons: http://youtu.be/_Ol492CLkdY and another is homologous structures: http://youtu.be/cTRq_1sneuI

Also, the fact that you don't understand that all animals and humans are "transitional species" of what is to come shows your ignorance. You make the false assumption that there are fixed "kinds" the way clowns like Ray Comfort does. Mold something many times over a long period of time and a duck will never look like a fish or a rat like a whale.

Seriously, please don't go to medical school. You don't have the capacity to even comprehend basic evolution or research it to not make a fool of yourself. We don't need more memorizers in medical school but rather people that think critically.

The fact that you guys pretend to intellectually challenge evolution when your answer is a book written by a bunch of people in the most ignorant time periods of humanity then being repeated by a preacher in a circular logic system where the proof is the bible and the earth is 6k to 10k years old is just ludicrous.

If something gets to my nerves, is this pretend reasonableness and intellectualism coming from the intolerant and anti-intellectuals.

 

[verynice]

No, this just proves how ignorant you and the rest of YEC are. This is no different than saying that theory of gravity is not science because we can't create an entirely new universe and put gravity on it. If you can't understand that evolution is simply what you call "macroevolution = microevolution + time," you are ignorant of the facts.

Your entire statement was a play on words to have your cake an eat it. On one hand you want to accept microevolution + time exist but on the other you want to make it seem macroevolution is something else, such as some baseless extrapolation. It simply is not. One specific form of evidence is endogenous retroviruses: http://youtu.be/qh7OclPDN_s another is transposons: http://youtu.be/_Ol492CLkdY and another is homologous structures: http://youtu.be/cTRq_1sneuI

Also, the fact that you don't understand that all animals and humans are "transitional species" of what is to come shows your ignorance. You make the false assumption that there are fixed "kinds" the way clowns like Ray Comfort does. Mold something many times over a long period of time and a duck will never look like a fish or a rat like a whale.

Seriously, please don't go to medical school. You don't have the capacity to even comprehend basic evolution or research it to not make a fool of yourself. We don't need more memorizers in medical school but rather people that think critically.

The fact that you guys pretend to intellectually challenge evolution when your answer is a book written by a bunch of people in the most ignorant time periods of humanity then being repeated by a preacher in a circular logic system where the proof is the bible and the earth is 6k to 10k years old is just ludicrous.

If something gets to my nerves, is this pretend reasonableness and intellectualism coming from the intolerant and anti-intellectuals.

Ok🙂

 

[TriagePreMed]

Ok🙂

See? The pretend reasonable. It doesn't fool those who know.

 

[CooIBreeze]

No, this just proves how ignorant you and the rest of YEC are. This is no different than saying that theory of gravity is not science because we can't create an entirely new universe and put gravity on it. If you can't understand that evolution is simply what you call "macroevolution = microevolution + time," you are ignorant of the facts.

Your entire statement was a play on words to have your cake an eat it. On one hand you want to accept microevolution + time exist but on the other you want to make it seem macroevolution is something else, such as some baseless extrapolation. It simply is not. One specific form of evidence is endogenous retroviruses: http://youtu.be/qh7OclPDN_s another is transposons: http://youtu.be/_Ol492CLkdY and another is homologous structures: http://youtu.be/cTRq_1sneuI

Also, the fact that you don't understand that all animals and humans are "transitional species" of what is to come shows your ignorance. You make the false assumption that there are fixed "kinds" the way clowns like Ray Comfort does. Mold something many times over a long period of time and a duck will never look like a fish or a rat like a whale.

Seriously, please don't go to medical school. You don't have the capacity to even comprehend basic evolution or research it to not make a fool of yourself. We don't need more memorizers in medical school but rather people that think critically.

The fact that you guys pretend to intellectually challenge evolution when your answer is a book written by a bunch of people in the most ignorant time periods of humanity then being repeated by a preacher in a circular logic system where the proof is the bible and the earth is 6k to 10k years old is just ludicrous.

If something gets to my nerves, is this pretend reasonableness and intellectualism coming from the intolerant and anti-intellectuals.

Hope is slowly being restored by people like you. I would be happy to call you a colleague in the future. 👍

 

[touchpause13]

Hope is slowly being restored by people like you. I would be happy to call you a colleague in the future. 👍

I second this.

 

[kratosis]

id like to believe that my forefather or ancestor was a human being (i.e.-Adam)... and not Rafiki (although he was wise) 😛

if the rest of the scientific community wants to be a monkeys uncle... be my guest. lol

 

[FuzzyMemory]

id like to believe that my forefather or ancestor was a human being (i.e.-Adam)... and not Rafiki (although he was wise) 😛

if the rest of the scientific community wants to be a monkeys uncle... be my guest. lol

Humans and primates descended from a common ancestor. We are NOT descendants of monkeys, chimps, or gorillas. Really, I can understand evolution being a complex topic, but this amount of misconception, especially among university-level graduates really calls to question the quality of our education system.

 

[deleted480308]

Thats what I love about religion...always thinking that they are the special center and epitome of existence.

Whatever makes you sleep at night. That's the beauty of religion. Making people feel good to avoid facing the harsh reality of life.

That, and it doesn't change our ability to read a ct scan, suture, or set a bone....so we can all be doctors even if we disagree with each other

 

[pattr]

No, this just proves how ignorant you and the rest of YEC are. This is no different than saying that theory of gravity is not science because we can't create an entirely new universe and put gravity on it. If you can't understand that evolution is simply what you call "macroevolution = microevolution + time," you are ignorant of the facts.

Your entire statement was a play on words to have your cake an eat it. On one hand you want to accept microevolution + time exist but on the other you want to make it seem macroevolution is something else, such as some baseless extrapolation. It simply is not. One specific form of evidence is endogenous retroviruses: http://youtu.be/qh7OclPDN_s another is transposons: http://youtu.be/_Ol492CLkdY and another is homologous structures: http://youtu.be/cTRq_1sneuI

Also, the fact that you don't understand that all animals and humans are "transitional species" of what is to come shows your ignorance. You make the false assumption that there are fixed "kinds" the way clowns like Ray Comfort does. Mold something many times over a long period of time and a duck will never look like a fish or a rat like a whale.

Seriously, please don't go to medical school. You don't have the capacity to even comprehend basic evolution or research it to not make a fool of yourself. We don't need more memorizers in medical school but rather people that think critically.

The fact that you guys pretend to intellectually challenge evolution when your answer is a book written by a bunch of people in the most ignorant time periods of humanity then being repeated by a preacher in a circular logic system where the proof is the bible and the earth is 6k to 10k years old is just ludicrous.

If something gets to my nerves, is this pretend reasonableness and intellectualism coming from the intolerant and anti-intellectuals.

I'm going to go on the unpopular side to say some of what you said is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I'd like to have in a colleague...

1) What makes you so entitled to try and dictate who and who cannot enter a profession bc of his/her beliefs? You do realize that there are entire HOSPITALS and MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS founded on a particular faith right? Ie hospitals that have huge portraits of Jesus etc in the lobby declaring their faith base?
2) I hope you will not go on this kind of tirade every time you encounter someone ie physician colleague patient with whom you don't agree about their faith
3) As the above poster stated, our individual belief systems typically do not interfere with our ability to heal or give the highest possible care to someone.

 

[Beargryllz]

3) As the above poster stated, our individual belief systems typically do not interfere with our ability to heal or give the highest possible care to someone.

And I would like to add, do notice that the only people saying otherwise are pre-med, so we know how important their opinions are regarding this issue

 

[CooIBreeze]

And I would like to add, do notice that the only people saying otherwise are pre-med, so we know how important their opinions are regarding this issue

Are you suggesting that those who are not yet physicians have unimportant or invalid opinions? If so then all of the medical students and pre-meds that side with religion and yec are equally unimportant and invalid. I doubt anyone here cares what others believe in; however, the problem I, and likely TPM, have is the fact these people want to be physicians, but they are intellectually dishonest or completely ignorant of basic science, both of which make a poor scientist. As for religion, I believe it's fine as long as it never crosses over into the person's medical life. I would much rather have a reasonable physician do the best they can than a physician who relies on his imaginary friend to pick up the slack when he/she screws up.

 

[deleted480308]

Are you suggesting that those who are not yet physicians have unimportant or invalid opinions? If so then all of the medical students and pre-meds that side with religion and yec are equally unimportant and invalid. I doubt anyone here cares what others believe in; however, the problem I, and likely TPM, have is the fact these people want to be physicians, but they are intellectually dishonest or completely ignorant of basic science, both of which make a poor scientist. As for religion, I believe it's fine as long as it never crosses over into the person's medical life. I would much rather have a reasonable physician do the best they can than a physician who relies on his imaginary friend to pick up the slack when he/she screws up.

Thank you for permission to keep part of my belief structure oh dear ruler 😉

 

[CooIBreeze]

Thank you for permission to keep part of my belief structure oh dear ruler 😉

Clearly what I was going for, you're welcome

 

[TriagePreMed]

I'm going to go on the unpopular side to say some of what you said is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I'd like to have in a colleague...

1) What makes you so entitled to try and dictate who and who cannot enter a profession bc of his/her beliefs? You do realize that there are entire HOSPITALS and MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS founded on a particular faith right? Ie hospitals that have huge portraits of Jesus etc in the lobby declaring their faith base?
2) I hope you will not go on this kind of tirade every time you encounter someone ie physician colleague patient with whom you don't agree about their faith
3) As the above poster stated, our individual belief systems typically do not interfere with our ability to heal or give the highest possible care to someone.

1. It's not about "me" and who "I" believe should enter the profession. It's about the fact that the profession as a whole shouldn't allow people that would put faith above science. Sure, you can say evolution is not a big deal to practice medicine, but it is the same type of logic that leads doctors to be against plan b, vaccinations, etc. If you cannot evaluate the evidence and change your mind based on the evidence, you should not enter a profession that's evidence based. It's not about faith or religion. The catholics are perfectly happy believing whatever it is they believe in and don't deny basic science as the big bang or evolution.

2. This is a forum board. If you believe interactions in forum boards perfectly correlate with social situations in real life, you need to get out more.

3. Yes, "typically" don't interfere, except when it does and you get teens doing back alley abortions with coat hangers because they don't want to raise their rapist uncle's baby or a group of children die from a preventable disease. Denial of evolution, considering the facts available, shows an inability to think scientifically.

 

[pattr]

1. It's not about "me" and who "I" believe should enter the profession. It's about the fact that the profession as a whole shouldn't allow people that would put faith above science. Sure, you can say evolution is not a big deal to practice medicine, but it is the same type of logic that leads doctors to be against plan b, vaccinations, etc. If you cannot evaluate the evidence and change your mind based on the evidence, you should not enter a profession that's evidence based. It's not about faith or religion. The catholics are perfectly happy believing whatever it is they believe in and don't deny basic science as the big bang or evolution.

2. This is a forum board. If you believe interactions in forum boards perfectly correlate with social situations in real life, you need to get out more.

3. Yes, "typically" don't interfere, except when it does and you get teens doing back alley abortions with coat hangers because they don't want to raise their rapist uncle's baby or a group of children die from a preventable disease. Denial of evolution, considering the facts available, shows an inability to think scientifically.

Okay... So for one I don't think you can equate one's beliefs about the origins of the universe to those about birth control and vaccinations...

Honestly a lot of the links you posted in your last couple posts are things that high school biology students learn about. They're not extremely complicated concepts... I would think that physicians who go through medical school and residency surely understand transposons and retroviruses etc and their implications.

And my third point was directed toward physicians and health care professionals. I believe that if a professional is trained that one treatment or procedure is superior over another then he/she will do what the evidence says, regardless of whether or not they believe in the Big Bang theory or in a certain view of the origin of man. These belief systems do not interfere in clinical judgment.

 

[CooIBreeze]

Okay... So for one I don't think you can equate one's beliefs about the origins of the universe to those about birth control and vaccinations...

Honestly a lot of the links you posted in your last couple posts are things that high school biology students learn about. They're not extremely complicated concepts... I would think that physicians who go through medical school and residency surely understand transposons and retroviruses etc and their implications.

And my third point was directed toward physicians and health care professionals. I believe that if a professional is trained that one treatment or procedure is superior over another then he/she will do what the evidence says, regardless of whether or not they believe in the Big Bang theory or in a certain view of the origin of man. These belief systems do not interfere in clinical judgment.

He is trying to say that if you choose to ignore factual information and replace it with some fairy tale, as YECs do, then what is there to stop you from believing in exorcisms for people with mental disorders or vaccines causing autism. It has nothing to do with any specific belief. For an extreme example to get my point across, let's say you are intelligent enough to feel the effects of gravity and understand how it works, but choose not to believe it in because falling scares you. That makes you intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your logic which translates to a dangerous child playing at doctor in the future. How are you still not getting this?

 

[pattr]

He is trying to say that if you choose to ignore factual information and replace it with some fairy tale, as YECs do, then what is there to stop you from believing in exorcisms for people with mental disorders or vaccines causing autism. It has nothing to do with any specific belief. For an extreme example to get my point across, let's say you are intelligent enough to feel the effects of gravity and understand how it works, but choose not to believe it in because falling scares you. That makes you intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your logic which translates to a dangerous child playing at doctor in the future. How are you still not getting this?

I understand very clearly what he and you mean; I just do not agree. This thread is extremely malignant and I don't think it does any good to debate about these things since they obviously cannot be resolved.

If anyone has read "The spirit catches you and you fall down" you will understand where I'm coming from. Even you debasing people's beliefs as "fairy tales" is insensitive and offensive. What I am trying to get across through the confines of this forum is that there is a distinction between having a faith or religion and ignoring all logic or being intellectually dishonest. Clearly someone who has passed the rigors of medical school and residency will be trained in the scientific evidence base and will treat patients as such. If a physician really did act out of some bizarre faith against the best interest of the patient then he would be sued and lose his license.

There is a difference between being in medicine and being in academia/research. As a physician you must respect other people's beliefs even if they seem like fairy tales to you. In research/academia you are only responsible for being consistent with current theory and the scientific community; you don't have to respect anyone's beliefs save for the people who fund and support your research. Maybe this is where we disagree?

 

[verynice]

He is trying to say that if you choose to ignore factual information and replace it with some fairy tale, as YECs do, then what is there to stop you from believing in exorcisms for people with mental disorders or vaccines causing autism. It has nothing to do with any specific belief. For an extreme example to get my point across, let's say you are intelligent enough to feel the effects of gravity and understand how it works, but choose not to believe it in because falling scares you. That makes you intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your logic which translates to a dangerous ing at doctor in the future. How are you still not getting this?

Gravity is something that can be tested.

Evolution from one animal to another cannot.

A dog from 100 years ago looks like a dog today. The DNA will be mostly the same aside from a few mutations which have led to the variety we see today. That wouldn't even be adequately testable as the technology from 100 years ago wouldn't be sufficient to note the genetic make up the animal. The whole "were you there?" argument, although cliché, certainly is valid when we are talking about throughput science. We do not have the ability to test the theory. The so called "facts" are neither factual nor impressive. Why the scientific community seemingly has a death grip on this theory behind our origins must be from the desire of not to having to answer for their actions.

My point is that the evidences listed above have been presented to me ad nauseum. They are not sufficient for me to accept the large scale changes that are presented by evolutionists. Once we have some hard scientific data that provides some semblance of validity in contrast to what is presently provided by the proponents of the unfound theory, I will certainly reconsider my stance on our origins. However, until that time comes, I will fight for unbiased science that has undergone true cognitive evaluation rather than blind acceptance of a theory that has, at best, the same evidence as does the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Okay... So for one I don't think you can equate one's beliefs about the origins of the universe to those about birth control and vaccinations...

Honestly a lot of the links you posted in your last couple posts are things that high school biology students learn about. They're not extremely complicated concepts... I would think that physicians who go through medical school and residency surely understand transposons and retroviruses etc and their implications.

And my third point was directed toward physicians and health care professionals. I believe that if a professional is trained that one treatment or procedure is superior over another then he/she will do what the evidence says, regardless of whether or not they believe in the Big Bang theory or in a certain view of the origin of man. These belief systems do not interfere in clinical judgment.

So religion is not the reason why people are against birth control or vaccinations? And its not about the origin of the universe. It's about science and science denial based on faith. I don't know why religious people try to make it seem like its about anything else.

Yes, the videos I posted are basic. If anything, that shows how outrageous it is to deny something that a high school student can evaluate.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Gravity is something that can be tested.

Evolution from one animal to another cannot.

A dog from 100 years ago looks like a dog today. The DNA will be mostly the same aside from a few mutations which have led to the variety we see today. That wouldn't even be adequately testable as the technology from 100 years ago wouldn't be sufficient to note the genetic make up the animal. The whole "were you there?" argument, although cliché, certainly is valid when we are talking about throughput science. We do not have the ability to test the theory. The so called "facts" are neither factual nor impressive. Why the scientific community seemingly has a death grip on this theory behind our origins must be from the desire of not to having to answer for their actions.

My point is that the evidences listed above have been presented to me ad nauseum. They are not sufficient for me to accept the large scale changes that are presented by evolutionists. Once we have some hard scientific data that provides some semblance of validity in contrast to what is presently provided by the proponents of the unfound theory, I will certainly reconsider my stance on our origins. However, until that time comes, I will fight for unbiased science that has undergone true cognitive evaluation rather than blind acceptance of a theory that has, at best, the same evidence as does the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

So what is your evidence? The bible? I always find it funny how "look, I don't believe all those peer review studies and things prominent scientists say, but my preacher quoted this book that's like a few thousand years old. That form of evidence has me convinced!"

 

[verynice]

So what is your evidence? The bible? I always find it funny how "look, I don't believe all those peer review studies and things prominent scientists say, but my preacher quoted this book that's like a few thousand years old. That form of evidence has me convinced!"

The Bible, my personal relationship with Christ, physical and biological science, and philosophy all contribute to my belief in a Creator. If you want specific scientific evidence, I can certainly provide it.

 

[CooIBreeze]

Gravity is something that can be tested.

Evolution from one animal to another cannot.

A dog from 100 years ago looks like a dog today. The DNA will be mostly the same aside from a few mutations which have led to the variety we see today. That wouldn't even be adequately testable as the technology from 100 years ago wouldn't be sufficient to note the genetic make up the animal. The whole "were you there?" argument, although cliché, certainly is valid when we are talking about throughput science. We do not have the ability to test the theory. The so called "facts" are neither factual nor impressive. Why the scientific community seemingly has a death grip on this theory behind our origins must be from the desire of not to having to answer for their actions.

My point is that the evidences listed above have been presented to me ad nauseum. They are not sufficient for me to accept the large scale changes that are presented by evolutionists. Once we have some hard scientific data that provides some semblance of validity in contrast to what is presently provided by the proponents of the unfound theory, I will certainly reconsider my stance on our origins. However, until that time comes, I will fight for unbiased science that has undergone true cognitive evaluation rather than blind acceptance of a theory that has, at best, the same evidence as does the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

The evolution you are suggesting requires much longer than 100 years and it does in fact happen. "The DNA will be mostly the same aside from a few mutations which have led to the variety we see today." <--- as for this we share ~99% of our DNA with chimpanzees which suggests that we came from a common ancestor, so basically you just admitted that evolution does exist. Before we get into the whole "theory" thing, evolution is a "scientific theory" which is defined as: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Also, evolution on a large timescale has been proven by observing bacteria, insects, or other organisms with extremely short life spans that produce a large number of generations in a short time.

 

[CooIBreeze]

The Bible, my personal relationship with Christ, physical and biological science, and philosophy all contribute to my belief in a Creator. If you want specific scientific evidence, I can certainly provide it.

Ok.

 

[TriagePreMed]

The Bible, my personal relationship with Christ, physical and biological science, and philosophy all contribute to my belief in a Creator. If you want specific scientific evidence, I can certainly provide it.

Please, show us the evidence for young earth creationism.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Soooo LU got the go ahead from COCA eh&#8230;

and also:

 

[DOPlzthx]

1. It's not about "me" and who "I" believe should enter the profession. It's about the fact that the profession as a whole shouldn't allow people that would put faith above science. Sure, you can say evolution is not a big deal to practice medicine, but it is the same type of logic that leads doctors to be against plan b, vaccinations, etc. .

"Allowing" people to be doctors is based on their concern for other human beings, not whether they are putting science above faith. It doesn't even matter if a doctor is against vaccinations or plan b. There are laws in place that allow for people to have access to what they need, regardless of the doctor's personal beliefs.

 

[CooIBreeze]

"Allowing" people to be doctors is based on their concern for other human beings, not whether they are putting science above faith. It doesn't even matter if a doctor is against vaccinations or plan b. There are laws in place that allow for people to have access to what they need, regardless of the doctor's personal beliefs.

I agree that the doctor's personal beliefs are irrelevant, but it becomes a problem when doctors can't separate their beliefs from medicine. Although there are laws and whatnot, patients place their trust in their doctors and, for the most part, listen to their doctors. The patient doctor relationship should be based on educating and helping the patient. So if a doctor is spouting off unscientific speculations (their beliefs) not based on peer reviewed research then the patient is in danger. When it comes to responsibly educating the patient, a doctor cannot pick and choose what they wish to believe as fact simply because it makes them feel better about the world.

 

[TriagePreMed]

"Allowing" people to be doctors is based on their concern for other human beings, not whether they are putting science above faith. It doesn't even matter if a doctor is against vaccinations or plan b. There are laws in place that allow for people to have access to what they need, regardless of the doctor's personal beliefs.

Well, good job in setting up a false dichotomy there as if we can't have people that are concerned about other human beings and be able to practice evidence based medicine. Guess what? Medicine is not a charity. That's why we put people through rigorous intellectual standards to enter the profession. To stipulate that physicians be able to understand basic scientific reasoning is not an unreasonable standard.

Laws do exist, but to pretend there haven't been many cases where physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc. haven't put their religion before evidence based medicine is to turn a blind eye on reality. Besides, it is physicians who advice and (many times) push for healthcare legislation. We need someone that can put their faith aside for reality and evidence based medicine advising on things of medical importance. The contrary harms patients in the long run.

 

[TriagePreMed]

PS4, the conversation is not about accepting people of faith. It has been repeated throughout that it is not a problem if you have faith or religious values. The problem is when people put faith above science. One simple test of this is a person's belief in evolution. Catholics, many protestants, buddhists, etc. are able to accept facts when facts exist. I don't know why Christians always like to warp the conversation and make it seem like they are persecuted for their beliefs and people are being intolerant of them. Guess what? I'm a minority and most of my family is religious, so I don't have an intolerance problem.

Yes, people choose to go to Liberty. That's fine. Nobody is saying people shouldn't be allowed to go there. What people are saying is that the university shouldn't be accredited because it is an insult to higher learning. There are people that thinks reptilians secretly control the world and others that the earth is flat. Should they have access to grant degrees that are meant to have a scientific backbone? Absolutely not.

And no, I won't worry about "me." I'm going to worry about the profession and the general public that deserves to be treated by competent people. By the way, you may say you don't know any religious doctors that are looney, but without them, we wouldn't have the abortion, plan b and other similar problems. Don't pretend that it isn't their religion that's the reason that happens.

 

[CooIBreeze]

1. As the Liberty Alumni has stated, his/her professor did not say to reject science over religion. The professor educated the student on both sides of the debate and allowed the adult student to choose what they wanted to believe in. It is freedom of choice.

2. Yes there are people who believe in reptilians, and flat earths. Should they be given access to PhD programs to scientific research? I would say it should be reviewed on a case-by-case application because it would depends what they wanted to research, how would they conduct the research, and what they hoped to contribute to the scientific community.

3. Should the above people be given access to physician training? I'd be more open to the idea. Why? Because believing in reptiles controlling the Earth is irrelevant to patient diagnosis. One thing does NOT have to do with the other. If you can properly diagnose and treat a patient, and educate a patient on conventional medicine then you're fine by my book. I don't judge people's quality of profession based on what they believe in the privacy of their own homes.


4. I support the choice of abortion and plan-B. Even more so plan-B because its a pre-conception pill. And quite frankly there is nothing to pretend about it. Abortions occur to religious and non-religious people all the same.

Swing and miss. Honestly, if you don't understand what is being argued at this point and why, then you are beyond help. I give up on this thread. I'm pretty sure it's going to give me cancer.

 

[guylewis]

Gravity is something that can be tested.

Evolution from one animal to another cannot.

A dog from 100 years ago looks like a dog today. The DNA will be mostly the same aside from a few mutations which have led to the variety we see today. That wouldn't even be adequately testable as the technology from 100 years ago wouldn't be sufficient to note the genetic make up the animal. The whole "were you there?" argument, although cliché, certainly is valid when we are talking about throughput science. We do not have the ability to test the theory. The so called "facts" are neither factual nor impressive. Why the scientific community seemingly has a death grip on this theory behind our origins must be from the desire of not to having to answer for their actions.

My point is that the evidences listed above have been presented to me ad nauseum. They are not sufficient for me to accept the large scale changes that are presented by evolutionists. Once we have some hard scientific data that provides some semblance of validity in contrast to what is presently provided by the proponents of the unfound theory, I will certainly reconsider my stance on our origins. However, until that time comes, I will fight for unbiased science that has undergone true cognitive evaluation rather than blind acceptance of a theory that has, at best, the same evidence as does the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

evolution cannot be tested!?!?!?!?! I'm an evolutionary biologist, i created a hypothesis and tested it and got p values < 0.05. evolution was tested. where is a single p value from creationists?

what evidence do we have?...oh i don't know, the entire field of genetics, or biochemistry, or molecular biology. I got this crap from some of my students who asked about "lack of evidence" so I just told them about chromosome #2. the proof of our ancestry sitting right in our genes.
See:


the problem with young earth creationism is that you are not only throwing away evolutionary biology in order to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you have to throw away genetics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology all so you can believe that god made earth in seven days and we are the inbred progeny of two humans.

I had students who asked me: has there ever been an animal who gave birth to a new species? I told them that's not how evolution works. I then explained that Spanish is a language evolved from Latin, but that doesn't mean a baby was born speaking spanish even though his parents spoke only Latin. it slowly evolves over time. periods of time that are beyond the comprehension of our brains. we have to think about the world in geological time to appreciate evolution.

I've had students who asked smugly: "if we are evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist?" not understanding that we evolved from a common ape ancestor. I would then explain how white Americans are descendents of Europeans, but that doesn't mean Europeans vanished.

seriously, how can this be 2013, with us writing on computers and ipads, debating the validity of basic science? this is one step above thinking the sun goes around the earth. how can we seriously be believing that the earth is not older than 6,000 years old? we have irrefutable evidence of civilizations, that are far older than 6,000 years, my own ancestral people included. I am absolutely mortified that some of you who are arguing these points will be doctors someday, telling your patients you don't "believe" in antibiotic resistance, or getting vaccinations

 

[deleted480308]

Guylewis,

For a trained scientist, you employ a lot of slippery slope fallacy in your predictions as to the consequences of religous doctors who don't agree with you

 

[DOPlzthx]

I am absolutely mortified that some of you who are arguing these points will be doctors someday, telling your patients you don't "believe" in antibiotic resistance, or getting vaccinations

Your opinions are being expressed in such an extreme form that you sound intolerant.

 

[guylewis]

Your opinions are being expressed in such an extreme form that you sound intolerant.

I'm as intolerant of creationism being considered a valid biological science as I am intolerant of voodoo being used as a valid form of medicine, or the flat earth being considered a valid geological theory.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm as intolerant of creationism being considered a valid biological science as I am intolerant of voodoo being used as a valid form of medicine, or the flat earth being considered a valid geological theory.

But for real, the earth is flat right? 😉

 

[TriagePreMed]

Swing and miss. Honestly, if you don't understand what is being argued at this point and why, then you are beyond help. I give up on this thread. I'm pretty sure it's going to give me cancer.

I agree. How do you have a discussion with someone that believes flat earthers and people that think reptilians control the earth should be awarding science PhDs? Also, what is this thing about teaching both sides? First off, there is no two sides in science, which shows bias right there off the bat, and second, how do you know that they taught you evolution properly if you received an improper education that believes young earth creationism is science? It's like saying the reason you know being muslim is bad because your priest gave you both sides of the catholic and muslim religion.

 

[DOPlzthx]

...

 

[Temperature101]

I have a feeling that LUCOM will be among the top 10 osteopathic med schools in 5 years...Hehhhh! It is JUST a feeling!

 

[gc91]

100% agree. People are way too fussy on this forum.

And for people heralding that their stats will be super low, look at Marian University. 3.6 GPA and 26 MCAT averages. You can be a Christen University and still have awesome academics. Look at Notre Dame.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but Marian/Notre Dame/etc are CATHOLIC schools that teach A-theistic (meaning without theism) Evolution. There is no mention of God, creationism, intelligent design, etc except when relevant in explaining the controversies of evolution. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Uhhh do you not know biblical history?? The Bible is an extremely complex compilation of narratives from many different authors over hundreds of years that was canonized officially in the counsel of nicessa in around 300 CE

It was actually the 3rd council of Carthage in 397 CE.

The catholics are perfectly happy believing whatever it is they believe in and don't deny basic science as the big bang or evolution.

We actually promote it! The theory of the Big Bang was developed by Georges Lamaitre who was a Catholic priest.

Our only true downfall is our bishops preach against birth control and abortion.🙄

It's like saying the reason you know being muslim is bad because your priest gave you both sides of the catholic and muslim religion.

Hey, hey, hey! We like the Muslims. A lot, in fact.

 

[gc91]

.

 

[gc91]

.

 

[gc91]

.

 

[victoriax87]

I have a question regarding the structure/curriculum of the school. I don't know of any other medical schools that go on a trimester schedule. Is this a good thing? Or bad because we will have more information to cram in a smaller time frame???? Really worried about this!!
(Look in the academic catalog if you don't know what I am referring to or don't believe it is on a trimester schedule).

 

[touchpause13]

I have a question regarding the structure/curriculum of the school. I don't know of any other medical schools that go on a trimester schedule. Is this a good thing? Or bad because we will have more information to cram in a smaller time frame???? Really worried about this!!
(Look in the academic catalog if you don't know what I am referring to or don't believe it is on a trimester schedule).

I really dont think thats the kind of question that will be answered on this particular thread dear.

 

[cliquesh]

I have a question regarding the structure/curriculum of the school. I don't know of any other medical schools that go on a trimester schedule. Is this a good thing? Or bad because we will have more information to cram in a smaller time frame???? Really worried about this!!
(Look in the academic catalog if you don't know what I am referring to or don't believe it is on a trimester schedule).

I think pcom is on a trimester schedule. Seems to work fine for pcom.

 

[Bomikepa]

i guess being openly gay rules me out of this school.....
troll away

 

[touchpause13]

i guess being openly gay rules me out of this school.....
troll away

Yeah I know dat feels.
And im openly an athiest as well

 

[jl lin]

Are they any students that can actually give some solid feedback on this school? How it is going in terms of challenging curriculum, and the important stuff in terms of the medical education/experiences and other pragmatic stuff. Philosophical stuff aside, it would be good to have feedback from actual students re: the caliber of curriculum-application, teaching, test-averaging, etc.

About the tobacco industry--the issue is not that they are putting money into healthcare organizations and schools of medical education. Pharms are big money makers, and there have been putting plenty of money programs and MS education systems for decades--and certainly there has been no shortage of health problems associated with plenty of pharm. agents.

No. The real question that should be pressed is this:

Are states failing to invest tobacco money to fight tobacco use?

And talk about incontrovertible evidence: cigarette smoking is not slightly dangerous to one's health; it is EXTREMELY hazardous to one's health. So monies from TCs to schools should be required to develop and run programs that educate and push the antismoking agenda, b/c for most addicted or regular smokers, it's an obstruction to health and wellness--and expensive one at that, and it is a death sentence.

Off that rant.

Now, back to input FROM ACTUAL LUCOM students.