Hello:

Evolution is the bedrock of biology. Biology is the bedrock of medicine. If you don't believe in evolution, why do you take medicine? And, if you DO take medicine, and expect it to WORK, whether you like it or not, you're a BELIEVER in evolution..

Chew on that.

excon

It is not necessary to believe in every aspect of evolution to understand biology. One can, for instance,
Believe in microevolution without believing in macroevolution. The evidence for the former is abundant,
While the evidence for the latter is not nearly so clear.

I do not accept macroevolution. I do take medicine. There is no contradiction there.

Politicians do tend pick and choose among what science has to say to suit their political leanings - conservatives and liberals alike. But I reject your premise - there are plenty of us conservatives who believe in what science has to say, when properly vetted - including evolution. We also believe in what science has to say about other topics, such as the safety of GMOs, and fracking, and that the Keystone pipeline would have had essentially zero impact on carbon dioxide in the air. Do you?

The problem is Liberals think facts are like rubber or smoke... completely subjective to what they want them to be at any moment and always changing. The rest of us believe facts simply are... they are not subject to political correctness or someone's whim of the day. And if they don't stand up to independent unbiased review...they aren't facts...but someones unproven theory.

Most of the lefties know nothing about evolution except that science tells them to believe it's true. They are as ignorant about it as they claim the creationists are ."Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” (Pope Francis)
"This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from And how did everything start which ultimately led to man I believe this is of the utmost importance. "(Pope Benedict XVI)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from And how did everything start which ultimately led to man I believe this is of the utmost importance. "(Pope Benedict XVI)

---

Hello again, tom:

It's true... But, gravity doesn't either. Therefore, gravity is bunk.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

The problem is Liberals think facts are like rubber or smoke...

---

Hello smoothy:

The problem with right wingers is they DENY science.. But, when they're sick, they go to a doctor whose education IS science...

Go figger.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

We also believe in what science has to say about other topics, such as the safety of GMOs, and fracking, and that the Keystone pipeline would have had essentially zero impact on carbon dioxide in the air. Do you?

---

Hello e:

I dunno HOW you missed it, but the problem with Keystone is NOT the air, but the Ogallala Aquifer which lies beneath it. About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies the aquifer, which yields about 30 percent of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States. We wouldn't want the pipe to rupture over it.

What??? Pipelines DON'T rupture???

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

It's true... But, gravity doesn't either. Therefore, gravity is bunk.

excon

---

haven't heard any 'right wingers' call gravity bunk. But you make an interesting point . For 300 years gravity being real was "consensus science" .Anyone who thought otherwise must be a denier. Now comes a string theory dude (Eric Verlinde) who blows the whole theory on it's head .

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...001.0785v1.pdf


How dare he challenge the dogma of scientific theory !


And if the gravity theory is wrong then our understanding of the universe is indeed bunk.

I thought Hippocrates' "First do no harm" was the bedrock of medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

haven't heard any 'right wingers' call gravity bunk. But you make an interesting point . For 300 years gravity being real was "consensus science" .Anyone who thought otherwise must be a denier. Now comes a string theory dude (Eric Verlinde) who blows the whole theory on it's head .

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...001.0785v1.pdf


How dare he challenge the dogma of scientific theory !


And if the gravity theory is wrong then our understanding of the universe is indeed bunk.

---

http://peacefulwarriors.net/nothing-...antum-physics/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

I thought Hippocrates' "First do no harm" was the bedrock of medicine.

---

Hello C:

I'm sure you said something important.. I just can't tell what it was.

excon

PS> (edited) Oh, I see. I said biology is the BEDROCK of medicine and you're arguing with me. Apparently, the premise is fine, but it's the semantics that you object to. Ok. Would the word CORNERSTONE be better? I'm fine with Hippocrates getting bedrock.

Like most things science and the way it's used is subject to the amount of profit it presents therefore corrupted by self serving interests.

Keystone is a good example of that fact, as well as the BP and Exxon disasters. Humans never learn from the past and keep repeating the same mistakes chasing PROFITS. Evolution is learning from those failed experiments and improving the application safely not moving to another spot and doing the same thing again.

Profits over people is NOT science. Nor is it evolution.

Hello again,

Apparently, my right wing friends don't understand my question. It's either that, or they don't LIKE the answer. So, lemme try it another way..

You DON'T believe in evolution, yet you expect medicine BASED on evolution to be effective. How does that work?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

The problem with right wingers is they DENY science.. But, when they're sick, they go to a doctor whose education IS science...

Go figger.

excon

---

What the left calls science usually requires a bigger leap of faith than any religion out there. Because its rarely subjected to or survived peer review or any proof that the concept is flawed.

Science is about facts... not propaganda. When those "facts" are cherry picked and proof that those "facts" are not in fact "facts" or even repeatable, and worse... proven inaccurate are ignored... it ceases to be "Science". And becomes political propaganda. Like "Global Warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Apparently, my right wing friends don't understand my question. It's either that, or they don't LIKE the answer. So, lemme try it another way..

You DON'T believe in evolution, yet you expect medicine BASED on evolution to be effective. How does that work?

excon

---

The truth is that evolution is not taught in medical school for a good reason ;because it has no relevance to the medical practice . The students have no time to study it ,and studying it would not make them better physicians. Doctors do need to know the human body. It is irrelevant to their practice if the human body ,or any human part evolved randomly or were created .

excon, please explain how evolution is the bedrock of biology. Please explain how medicine is based on evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Like most things science and the way it's used is subject to the amount of profit it presents therefore corrupted by self serving interests.

Keystone is a good example of that fact, as well as the BP and Exxon disasters. Humans never learn from the past and keep repeating the same mistakes chasing PROFITS. Evolution is learning from those failed experiments and improving the application safely not moving to another spot and doing the same thing again.

Profits over people is NOT science. Nor is it evolution.

---

Sorry Tal , can't let you get away with that rant. Apparently the emperor didn't consider safety when making his decision about Keystone ,because Alberta oil will still be transported through the country . Now, however, it will continue to require tens of thousands of railroad tank cars travelling through densely populated areas rather than through a buried pipeline.

It's all about the emperor's political legacy and has nothing to do with jobs, national security, or any other rational factor. He wants to tout this "achievement " to the United Nations climate talks, which begin in Paris at the end of the month. He made this decision 7 years ago and delayed and delayed it because he needed big labor support. Now he is throwing them under the bus.

I thought Canada had decided to ship the oil west through its own country.

Nobody asks why Canada doesn't refine its own tar sand crude. Wonder why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05...n_1539701.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

To what refinery?

---

Good question. Or Energy East that will pipe the crude to St. John, New Brunswick refineries and then off to India.