Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

Apache said:
A theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations.

A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation it is generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts are "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.

Stop ly***. Theory makes more sense.
Click to expand...

You really dont know what you are saying haha. What you have just shown anyone who knows science is that you know nothing about science. lol. I mean... this is the basics, the 101 stuff that a half educated human should at leave have a passing knowledge on. I love how you make faith look foolish, nothing drives people faster away from religion than a creationist.

Fact: "apple falls" (event) - Theory of gravity is the explanation
Fact: "things change/evolve" (event) - Theory of evolution describes how and why things change.
Fact: "people get sick" (event) - Theory of germs describes how and why we get sick from germs.

I love the bits you bold, cause it makes me smile. There is expermentation and direct observation for the fact of evolution ;)

Fact: Bacteria evolves (event) - Theory of evolution explains how and why they evolved.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Get used to it :D A scientific theory never becomes a fact. It explains it. Fact, life evolves.
 
Last edited:
Apache said:
A theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations.

A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation it is generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts are "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.

Stop ly***. Theory makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...plagiarizing from wiki - and then posting it out of context.

"Evolution is both fact and theory" is a statement that appears in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed to clarify misconceptions about the philosophy of evolution primarily in response to creationist statements that "evolution is only a theory". In the context of the creationist claim, theory is used in its vernacular meaning as an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation. The purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, this claim cannot be substantiated.[1][2]

In the statement "evolution is both fact and theory", evolution as theory refers to the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) meanings of theory. In the first scientific meaning, a theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations. For example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth. Similarly, the theory of evolution unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".[3]

In the second scientific meaning, a scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution in the second scientific sense. These and many other causal evolutionary theories can be expressed in the mathematical framework of population genetics. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.

A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation it is generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts are "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.[4][5] That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable facts in the biological sciences.[2]
Click to expand...
 
EtienneK said:
This is going a bit overboard. There are lots of great theist scientists.
Click to expand...
Do you think they are great because of their religion or despite their religion?

In the past one had to be religious, even the hated Darwin was "religious", it was a prerequisite not to be shunned by your community in the past. Only recently have our societies got to the level they are now where an atheist doesnt automatically get hated on by their community and pushed outta society. Now that scientists can be openly athiest with much lower levels of hatred (even though they are still the most hated minority in the US), you are seeing more atheist scientists. Saying that, its not impossible for religious people to contribute to science... its just rarer. Science requires skepticism, religion requires faith. Diametrically opposed ways of trying to understand the universe.
 
Last edited:
EtienneK said:
This is going a bit overboard. There are lots of great theist scientists.
Click to expand...

I could have amended it to "If you believe in religion, and defer to those beliefs instead of facts, you should not even be ALLOWED to study in a science or medical faculty at ANY university in the world." Unfortunately, until religion is no more, this sort of distinction will continue to be made of necessity.

I am certainly not saying that atheist scientists cannot be as, or more biased than theist scientists. What I am saying is that if you remove remove religion from the equation, you have one less source for potential bias.
 
Talking about theists being scientists I'd like to add my 2c:

Some of the greatest scientists I have had the pleasure of interacting with were/are theists. As The_Assimilator says as long as you can separate your beliefs from your observations you'll be fine. More than fine, you'll be a scientist. :)

If however you hold your beliefs above your observations or if you allow your beliefs to shape your interpretation of the results (i.e. you start from a conclusion and then try to make the observations fit that conclusion) then I'm afraid you can call yourself a scientist if you really want but you aren't one.
 
The_Assimilator said:
I could have amended it to "If you believe in religion, and defer to those beliefs instead of facts, you should not even be ALLOWED to study in a science or medical faculty at ANY university in the world." Unfortunately, until religion is no more, this sort of distinction will continue to be made of necessity.

I am certainly not saying that atheist scientists cannot be as, or more biased than theist scientists. What I am saying is that if you remove remove religion from the equation, you have one less source for potential bias.
Click to expand...

Thats not what you said at first.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.
 
falcon786 said:
Evolution in small doses does exist but theres a limit as to how far it can go unaided.
Click to expand...

why only in "small doses"? why is there a "limit"?

us humans cannot understand the concept of 100,000 years....how can one even try to comprehend 1 million, 100 million, or even a billion years?


I suggest you forget the word "Evolution" for a minute, and take 20 minutes to read up on "Natural Selection" instead. only then can you understand Evolution.
 
Keeper said:
why only in "small doses"? why is there a "limit"?

us humans cannot understand the concept of 100,000 years....how can one even try to comprehend 1 million, 100 million, or even a billion years?


I suggest you forget the word "Evolution" for a minute, and take 20 minutes to read up on "Natural Selection" instead. only then can you understand Evolution.
Click to expand...

I understand natural selection,although you seem to be contradicting yourself,if we cant comprehend 1 million etc years then isnt the theory of evolution just that an attempt to do just that and yet some insist its a fact?
 
falcon786 said:
I understand natural selection,although you seem to be contradicting yourself,if we cant comprehend 1 million etc years then isnt the theory of evolution just that an attempt to do just that and yet some insist its a fact?
Click to expand...

Yes I know, but you are wasting your time with these chaps.
 
falcon786 said:
I understand natural selection,although you seem to be contradicting yourself,if we cant comprehend 1 million etc years then isnt the theory of evolution just that an attempt to do just that and yet some insist its a fact?
Click to expand...
What a silly thing to say.

I can't comprehend 10 million lines of code. Doesn't mean those 10 million lines of code don't exist.
 
falcon786 said:
I understand natural selection,although you seem to be contradicting yourself,if we cant comprehend 1 million etc years then isnt the theory of evolution just that an attempt to do just that and yet some insist its a fact?
Click to expand...

If animals can change in 1 generation...even by a tiny fraction....then you can imagine what changes can happen in a longer given timespan
it's difficult to understand that a single celled organism can evolve into us, because it isn't observable, and it's hard to comprehend what a billion years really is.

thats all I was saying.
 
porchrat said:
What a silly thing to say.

I can't comprehend 10 million lines of code. Doesn't mean those 10 million lines of code don't exist.
Click to expand...

You dont know whats in that code but you think you know for a fact what it says,its like those people that look at the heading of an article and comment without reading it even.

Speculate all you want,its still not a fact.
 
Last edited:
falcon786 said:
Unfortunately you are right,they quite stubborn and have made up their mind about it no matter whats put forth.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm just trying to help you understand why Evolution is possible


You said it yourself:
falcon786 said:
Evolution in small doses does exist.
Click to expand...

I was just saying, if you can believe a small change is possible, whats wrong with "more changes" over "more time" ?
 
Keeper said:
Hey I'm just trying to help you understand why Evolution is possible


You said it yourself:


I was just saying, if you can believe a small change is possible, whats wrong with "more changes" over "more time" ?
Click to expand...

I agree it is possible.We just dont understand it enough yet to use it to reach conclusions and i doubt we ever will....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X