Comments on: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html medical blog Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:41:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56258 Anonymous Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56258 "The "evolution" of monkeys into humans"<br/><br/>The THEORY of evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys. This is typical ignorance on those who subscribe to ID. They manipulate words to make a point.<br/>There is no such thing in science as The Theory of Intelligent Design. It does not pass the test for the definition of a theory and is actually a BELIEF. The use of the word "intelligent" is misleading and is not how scientists use this word. This word when used as an adjective or a noun by scientists refer to the living and when used on the non-living, the word "artificial" precedes it. Does "Intelligent" refer to "Design" as being intelligent or smart or brilliant? Or does "Intelligent" refer to the "Designer". Or does "Intelligent" mean all-powerful, omnipresent and omniscient? <br/>It should be renamed "The Belief in God's Design". <br/>But, that's not going to happen.<br/>You have an agenda which is to teach your religion in the public school. And you are not being honest about it. Why would I have you teach your religion to my children when you are being dishonest?<br/> -Dr. EAM “The “evolution” of monkeys into humans”

The THEORY of evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys. This is typical ignorance on those who subscribe to ID. They manipulate words to make a point.
There is no such thing in science as The Theory of Intelligent Design. It does not pass the test for the definition of a theory and is actually a BELIEF. The use of the word “intelligent” is misleading and is not how scientists use this word. This word when used as an adjective or a noun by scientists refer to the living and when used on the non-living, the word “artificial” precedes it. Does “Intelligent” refer to “Design” as being intelligent or smart or brilliant? Or does “Intelligent” refer to the “Designer”. Or does “Intelligent” mean all-powerful, omnipresent and omniscient?
It should be renamed “The Belief in God’s Design”.
But, that’s not going to happen.
You have an agenda which is to teach your religion in the public school. And you are not being honest about it. Why would I have you teach your religion to my children when you are being dishonest?
-Dr. EAM

]]> By: beajerry http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56247 beajerry Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:52:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56247 Sadly, once again a journalist gives more credit to intelligent design than it's due. It's still a fringe thing.<br/>I wish they'd stop talking about it as if it has popular appeal. Sadly, once again a journalist gives more credit to intelligent design than it’s due. It’s still a fringe thing.
I wish they’d stop talking about it as if it has popular appeal.

]]> By: The Squire http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56245 The Squire Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:18:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56245 It wasn't an "evolution of monkeys into humans," but the gradual divergance over millions of years (7 or so to be exact) between the chimp and human lines since our last common ancestor. Just like a virus is a virus, Humans are Primates and Great Apes, just as chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs are. <i>Your</i> understanding of the facts are flawed, anon 3:25. It wasn’t an “evolution of monkeys into humans,” but the gradual divergance over millions of years (7 or so to be exact) between the chimp and human lines since our last common ancestor. Just like a virus is a virus, Humans are Primates and Great Apes, just as chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs are. Your understanding of the facts are flawed, anon 3:25.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56237 Anonymous Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:30:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56237 "The "evolution" of monkeys into humans"<br/><br/>I knew that you are not a scientist but a man of religion. When you know your science then we can talk science. In the meantime go check your horoscope. “The “evolution” of monkeys into humans”

I knew that you are not a scientist but a man of religion. When you know your science then we can talk science. In the meantime go check your horoscope.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56234 Anonymous Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:25:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56234 Your argument is flawed. No matter how many mutations Avian Flu goes through, it's still a virus. The "evolution" of monkeys into humans requires mutations into dramatically different species and vastly greater complexity. Your argument is flawed. No matter how many mutations Avian Flu goes through, it’s still a virus. The “evolution” of monkeys into humans requires mutations into dramatically different species and vastly greater complexity.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56229 Anonymous Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:02:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56229 To Anon 11:03<br/>Yes it can be.<br/>If the genes of a virus can mutate to produce a different virus,then the genes of the Homo species can mutate to produce Homo sapiens. That's the comparison. To Anon 11:03
Yes it can be.
If the genes of a virus can mutate to produce a different virus,then the genes of the Homo species can mutate to produce Homo sapiens. That’s the comparison.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/10/linking-tamiflu-avian-flu-and.html/comment-page-1#comment-56202 Anonymous Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:03:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/10/19209.html#comment-56202 Likening the mutation of a virus to the origen of man's existance is not quite comparing an apple to an apple Likening the mutation of a virus to the origen of man’s existance is not quite comparing an apple to an apple

]]>