patrick.net

michaelsch says

3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.
4. This type of "education" cause damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.
5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults want to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

All of the above statements fly completely contrary to reality. If you really want to talk about indoctrination, we should talk about the 2005 Federal Court case that dealt with whether "Intelligent Design" should be taught along with evolution in class rooms. "Intelligent Design" = creationism.

Federal court judge's ruling on the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

michaelsch says

and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.

That's kinda lame. That's like saying Newton's laws of physics is the best we can do. That's true only until an Einstein came along.

Medical students? They are required to study only a very small course in nutrition. Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health. I have diminishing respect for them every time i think of that. So who cares about where they stand on religion. Religion is intangible to the closed eye anyway. Oh and btw, what if ot were all true and based on visitors from another world? The world is not flat.

KILLERJANE says

So who cares about where they stand on religion.

The point is we do care where they stand on evolution and whether or not they attend classes in medical school. See the AIDs example I gave above for why. If their religion conflicts with the science upon which their profession is based, then they must choose between the two, and if they choose their religion then they don't get to practice medicine.

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

KILLERJANE says

Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health.

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

Mike Weiner - aka Dr. Mike Savage - is a nutrient doc.

Dan8267 says

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

No they prefer to treat patients chronically, more $$$. I have personally seen 3 people get well by juicing. But doctors told my mom n law it wasn't a good idea. One person, by juicing, got to throw out her high blood pressure medicine. The second saw a chronic illness of 7 years disappear. The third was a boy who had a 102 fever go away within 6 hours.
Even more stories where people are healed from cancers. Google it.
But yeah you can worship the docs if you want. And yes i know they are great for many accident injuries. But, however they also prefer to do chemo and all other sorts of "practice" without any regard of nutrition first.

Oh yeah and the godlike doctors also gave thousands upon thousands labotomies ( forgive spelling) in the 50's or so. They don't don't do that anymore. I guess when they were practicing then they made some poor judgements.

Dan8267 says

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

Yes and from there they "practice". Don't assume the world is flat because someone said so. I am not questioning the Science behind the science, but the fact is the universe is vast.

And science on going. We learn new things everyday. Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;
Who, what, where, when, and why of the pyramids of Egypt?

KILLERJANE says

Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;

How the fuck is insisting that medical students actually attend the core classes of their curriculum before practicing medicine "disrespecting people's religion"? That is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time.

If my religion refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms because it contradicted my holy book, would I be excused from taking an organic chemistry class and still be allowed to practice medicine? What if my religion forbids the study of anatomy? Evolution is no different. Grow up.

I never said that. But as for you your headline, you are as closed minded as those who insist that only evolution was involved.

KILLERJANE says

I have personally seen 3 people get well by juicing.

And here's a website for "Survivors" of these diets.
http://www.beyondveg.com/

If you don't want to seek new info and ideas, then why do you post? This is a discussion forum. Or is it a way to make you feel better about yourself?

There is scientific proof that other life producing worlds exist. Maybe they had an influence here?

KILLERJANE says

There is scientific proof that other life producing worlds exist. Maybe they had an influence here?

News to me. I heard there are candidates for planets that support life, and it is possible there may be bacterial life under the surface of Mars, but no scientific proof.

Got Links?

Check google news recently. Another report out a couple days ago, kepler, i believe. I am working now. Have good day.

KILLERJANE says

But as for you your headline, you are as closed minded as those who insist that only evolution was involved.

I think Dan's point is that if your religious belief is so completely inconsistent with well-established, factually supported science -- then it is best to reevaluate your beliefs. That's not close mindedness, that's asking for more open-mindedness.

KILLERJANE says

I am not questioning the Science behind the science, but the fact is the universe is vast.

I guess you are trying to say that "we don't know everything". This is true and I think we all agree on that. Sure, but there is a well-established, time tested, fool-proof method to know what you are curious to know: which is observation.

KILLERJANE says

One person, by juicing, got to throw out her high blood pressure medicine. The second saw a chronic illness of 7 years disappear. The third was a boy who had a 102 fever go away within 6 hours.
Even more stories where people are healed from cancers. Google it.

Healthy food is important regardless of the age. But to say "juicing" can cure so many deadly diseases is an extraordinary claim, therefore requires extraordinary proof. Here's the problem: Internet is no different than the real world, there are full of quacks. How to tell the difference? By scrutinizing what you read.

No read his headline, his point is that religion is bad and medicine good. Whatever. Read headline. The evolution point he makes below that is mostly understandable, but still a bit small minded.

uomo_senza_nome says

Healthy food is important regardless of the age. But to say "juicing" can cure so many deadly diseases is an extraordinary claim, therefore requires extraordinary proof. Here's the problem: Internet is no different than the real world, there are full of quacks. How to tell the difference? By scrutinizing what you read.

Not saying it is 100% cure all. But doctors should study it, and it is not required in a significant way under there curriculum.

Gerson-key word for one set of 50 case studies.

KILLERJANE says

No read his headline, his point is that religion is bad and medicine good. Whatever. Read headline. The evolution point he makes below that is mostly understandable, but still a bit small minded.

Thinking saying and doing need to line up.

I think it's pretty well supported that religion is bad if it causes unqualified and untrained people to become doctors. Yes, that's really bad. That's life and death bad. Can't get more black and white than that. Just take a look at all the examples of why it's bad listed in this thread.

Dan8267 says

f my religion refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms because it contradicted my holy book, would I be excused from taking an organic chemistry class and still be allowed to practice medicine? What if my religion forbids the study of anatomy?

Can you honestly make the point that medical students should be able to cherry pick which requirements apply to them because of religious reasons? That would not only be absurd, it would be dangerous.

Dan8267 says

I think it's pretty well supported that religion is bad if it causes unqualified and untrained people to become doctors. Yes, that's really bad. That's life and death bad. Can't get more black and white than that. Just take a look at all the examples of why it's bad listed in this thread.

Staff infection and medical malpractice and chemo also kill masses.

Dan8267 says

Can you honestly make the point that medical students should be able to cherry pick which requirements apply to them because of religious reasons? That would not only be absurd, it would be dangerous.

No i don't make that point, but i am not going for your short sided black and white approach either.

KILLERJANE says

Staff infection and medical malpractice and chemo also kill masses.

And that's relevant how?

KILLERJANE says

No i don't make that point, but i am not going for your short sided black and white approach either.

Some things are black and white, like slavery is bad. Just because one side is indefensible, doesn't make the other side "short-sighted". The Earth is round and anyone who says different is simply wrong, not insightful. It's ok to call bullshit, bullshit, especially when lives are on the line.

Of couse, I say black and white and you respond slavery. Take your doctors advice on the labotamy, i am sure it couldn't hurt. Pun intended.

the Earth is not round. It is an orb-like shape that is much larger around the equator than the circum. is at 90* to the equator.

A circle is round.

Just messing with you Dan. lol

Bap33 says

the Earth is not round. It is an orb-like shape that is much larger around the equator than the circum. is at 90* to the equator.

This is actually a common misconception. Nothing is perfectly round, as the fact that everything is made of atoms prevents that. However, you can measure how close to "round" an object is.

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7,926.28 miles (12,756.1 km)
Earth's Diameter at the Poles: 7,899.80 miles (12,713.5 km)

The difference between the major and minor axis of the Earth is a mere 0.334%. To put that in perspective, the Earth is about as smooth as an official billiards ball. The World Pool-Billiard Association states "All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter". So a billiards ball may deviate up to 0.222%. The Earth is pretty close to that level of smoothness.

wouldn't it be the same to say, "Bap is right. And in a related story, billiards balls are not very true either."? lol

Bap is right