Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

In that case I disagree that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of God. Many people have perceived the presence of God over thousands of years.


For thousands of years people believed that the weather was caused by god(s), this was their proof.
 
Can you clarify what you mean by unicorns? To my understanding, unicorns as they are traditionally understood do not possess magical abilities with which to hide themselves from human observation. But if you are referring to unicorns which are able to make themselves undetectable then I cannot conclude that they do not exist.
Have you ever seen a unicorn? If not then how can you say what they are capable of?

Heck by the same token you don't even know what your deity is capable of.

Like I said. Special pleading. I'm glad you've realised it though.

It still applies to things without magic. There are plenty of things that exist on this Earth that we have never seen before. Heck we discover a new species of beetle alone on average every few hours. It is extremely arrogant to claim we know for certain something doesn't exist unless we're able to reliably test for it's existence. However that doesn't mean you should concern yourself with it until such time as it is testable. Which obviously explains my status as an atheist as well as someone who doesn't believe in the existence of unicorns. This is my opinion anyway.
 
Last edited:
Doctors need to have faith that the research they base their decisions on is correct. According to this analysis, around one in six studies which demonstrate that medical treatments are effective are subsequently contradicted.

J. Ioannidis, Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research, Journal Of The American Medical Association, vol. 294(2), 2005, pp. 218 – 228:
ROFL you think doctors today perform treatments based on a few research papers?!? :wtf:

Drugs and treatment regimes need to have gone through far more rigorous tests than a few research papers before you get them performed in a hospital to the average Joe walking through the door.

Just try going to your medical aid and telling them you want approval for something to be done to you that is based on nothing but a few research papers they will laugh at you.

Full clinical trials through all phases or GTFO.
 
Last edited:
Can you clarify what you mean by unicorns? To my understanding, unicorns as they are traditionally understood do not possess magical abilities with which to hide themselves from human observation. But if you are referring to unicorns which are able to make themselves undetectable then I cannot conclude that they do not exist.

tin-foil-hat-tinfoilhat-aliens-cubicle-demotivational-poster-1259327131.jpg


:D

4526934670_f0d73e7fa4_o.jpg


:D :D
 
So the problem lies with our Medicines Control Council (and the various others that let this sort of thing slip through their fingers) whose one and only job is to check these things.

If the various control councils were doing their jobs this sort of thing wouldn't happen. The information is there if you dig hard enough (as demonstrated by the study you have just provided) and doesn't require any frickin faith. IT just requires that everyone do their damn jobs.
 
Last edited:
If unicorns existed I would be able to observe them living in nature. Since no unicorn has ever been observed living in nature I conclude that they do not exist.

If God exists I would not necessarily be able to observe God living in nature. So the fact that I have not observed God living in nature does not lead me to conclude that God does not exist.

Hence I consider the questions of the existence of God and unicorns to have different statuses.

So what about other imaginary things like ghosts? You cant see them so they must be real?

Your logic fais once again.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer, rooted with Revolver ROM, 1.6GH
 
Doctors need to have faith that the research they base their decisions on is correct. According to this analysis, around one in six studies which demonstrate that medical treatments are effective are subsequently contradicted.

J. Ioannidis, Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research, Journal Of The American Medical Association, vol. 294(2), 2005, pp. 218 – 228:

Do anything to a patient without having evidence that it will help and you could lose your license.
 
Do anything to a patient without having evidence that it will help and you could lose your license.
It isn't about research. He is trying to suggest that doctors make decisions on how to treat a patient through mere research instead of based on what is and isn't approved by the various councils that govern medicine and it's practice in this country. This is crazy talk. No doctor is going to use something that isn't approved in that country to treat their patients unless they are really stupid and want to have their license to practice stripped from them.
 
It is common practise for doctors to prescribe medicines off-label based on research or even hypothesis that supports the use of that medicine.
Off-label? What is this off-label? You mean stuff not approved?

Your doctor can prescribe it if he is willing to take the risk sure. The liability now lies with him though and he doesn't have the backing of the regulatory bodies.

Once you've got that prescription you can then take the risk of going to the black market medicine providers that managed to sneak the medicine into the country illegally when it isn't approved by the Medicines Control Council to purchase it. (this is starting to sound fun).

Either that or you can go through the official channels of getting special permission from the appropriate regulatory bodies. Seriously mate are you honestly telling me you have had a doctor prescribe medication to you that wasn't approved for use in this country by the Medicines Control Council? Next you're going to tell me your medical aid covered it and didn't laugh when you told them what you were doing.

I've seen it done only once where a life was at risk and there was no alternative. The motivations required to achieve it were freaking amazing. You would have to have been there to believe it.

Hardly what I would call "common practice".
 
Last edited:
Off-label? What is this off-label? You mean stuff not approved?

Your doctor can prescribe it if he is willing to take the risk sure. The liability now lies with him though and he doesn't have the backing of the regulatory bodies.

Once you've got that prescription you can then take the risk of going to the black market medicine providers that managed to sneak the medicine into the country illegally when it isn't approved by the Medicines Control Council to purchase it. (this is starting to sound fun).

Either that or you can go through the official channels of getting special permission from the appropriate regulatory bodies. Seriously mate are you honestly telling me you have had a doctor prescribe medication to you that wasn't approved for use in this country by the Medicines Control Council? Next you're going to tell me your medical aid covered it and didn't laugh when you told them what you were doing.

I've seen it done only once where a life was at risk and there was no alternative. The motivations required to achieve it were freaking amazing. You would have to have been there to believe it.

Hardly what I would call "common practice".

I think he means using medicine that is approved, but for different purposes than what it was originally tested and approved for. Not black-market, experimental stuff.

I don't know about here, but it's perfectly legal and acceptable practice in some countries, like the US and UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use

Still don't know what Jamal's point is though.
 
Last edited:
I think he means using medicine that is approved, but for different purposes than what it was originally tested and approved for. Not black-market, experimental stuff.

I don't know about here, but it's perfectly legal and acceptable practice in some countries, like the US and UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use

Still don't know what Jamal's point is though.
Oh OK. The point about medical aids and liability still apply but the rest doesn't then.
 
Still don't know what Jamal's point is though.


Straw man?

Why an understanding of Evolution is important for a Medical Doctor

[video=youtube;XAVyktynD_I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I[/video]
 
Last edited:
Nice video, thanks. Wish you posted that in my thread a few days ago, was about exactly this topic. (Doctors and evolution)

No probs,

it's part of a series so if you're interested, check out the all the episodes, there's a couple.
 
Are the Muslim male medical students permitted to study gynaecology ?
 
First we thought god was in the sky... then we got to the sky and there was space, then we thought that god was in space... then we got to space and there was nothing. The same with creation, the miracles in the bible, and judgement day.

We have come to realize that all these things that we thought could prove god were a lie... hence the idea that there is a god is a lie.

Islam has never claimed any of those things,instead the definition of GOD in Islam is alot more complex and if you read the quraan with an open mind then maybe you'll stop looking into the sky expecting to see a set of eyes looking back at you.:whistle:
 
Are the Muslim male medical students permitted to study gynaecology ?

What a dumb question,duh.

Are hateful people posting under the pretense of being mankind's next saviors allowed to post freely on mybb,judging from your presence here then the answer is obvious.:D

Seriously humour me,what does that have do to with anything????:confused:
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X