Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 10-16-2002, 09:55 PM

I promised Vanderzyden this thread a long time ago, but forgot about it.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>

29 Evidences for Macroevolution and how the science used to procure this evidence relates to medicine (or in some cases, Law and Order):

Note � when quoting from talkorigins, I deleted the references in parentheses and edited to make them easier to read. You can find more information about each point by directly going to talk origins and clicking on the references directly.

Phylogenetics. Using DNA (or fossils) to reconstruct evolutionary lineages.

As Vanderzyden is so fond of pointing out, phylogeny has some problems. But every scientific method has its problems and limitations. Scientists are the ones who figured out these limitations, are aware of them, and do thinks like backup studies, or phylogenies of several genes, to solve them.

People who object to the use of phylogenies are also objecting to the following analyses:
A. Epidemiology studies of HIV, influenza, and other deadly viruses.
B. The use of DNA evidence in criminal court cases.

A creationist might argue, �but what do those things have to do with evolution?� Well these tests are based on phylogenetic analysis, which of course is based on evolution, and those evolution equations that Vanderzyden was given in some other thread.

People who do epidemiology studies on influenza, or compare DNA sequences, use the same program for their analysis as those crazy materialistic evolutionary biologists. It�s called �Phylip� and it�s DOS based and annoying to use. But it works great. Since Vanderzyden has not given us a detailed analysis of why he thinks phylogenetic analysis of different species is flawed, but in humans alone or IAV alone it is just fine, I am wary of hiring him in my laboratory to carry out ANY analysis for ANY reason. Or any other phylogenetic denier for that matter. I also would not hire an engineer who thought bridge building over the Potomac River worked, but for some reason, with no evidence other than �I just know the engineers are wrong,� did not think it was possible to build a bridge over the Colorado River.

Ok let�s return to the boring old 29 evidences for macroevolution:

Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life

Quote:

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes.

Accepting this prediction, and the data that supports this prediction, is important for all medical researchers. Why can we use mice to study humans? Why can we even use yeast to study human metabolism or genetics? For this reason:

Quote:

All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers - but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms. � all known life uses the same polymer, polynucleotide (DNA or RNA), for storing species specific information. All known organisms base replication on the duplication of this molecule. The DNA used by living organisms is synthesized using only four nucleosides (deoxyadenosine, deoxythymidine, deoxycytidine, and deoxyguanosine) out of the dozens known (at least 99 occur naturally and many more have been artificially synthesized) � There are 293 naturally occurring amino acids known (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 69; Garavelli et al. 2001); however, the protein molecules used by all known living organisms are constructed with the same subset of 22 amino acids�all known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this. The few known exceptions are, nevertheless, simple and minor variations from the "universal" genetic code�All known organisms use extremely similar, if not the same, metabolic pathways and metabolic enzymes in processing energy-containing molecules. For example, the fundamental metabolic systems in living organisms are glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation. In all eukaryotes and in the majority of prokaryotes, glycolysis is performed in the same ten steps, in the same order, using the same ten enzymes�In addition, the most basic unit of energy storage, the adenosine triphosphate molecule (ATP), is the same in all species that have been studied.

Prediction 1.3: Convergence of independent phylogenies

Quote:

If there is one historical historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree. Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.

A common creationist objection to this prediction is that DNA determines function and anatomy, and the only reason the DNA is similar between species is because the anatomy is similar, and not because of evolution.

Let�s look at this idea further:

Quote:

According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. Though this logic may seem quite reasonable initially, all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not true - similar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies (see predictions 4.1 and 4.2 for a detailed explanation).

Please note the bolded sentence above. All of molecular biology disproves the creationist objection. So how would a creationist fare in a molecular biology lab? What experiments would they not do, or not believe? How do they twist their thinking around so that they can believe in the methods of molecular biology in order to cure some disease, yet reject all the other conclusions that molecular biology data makes about evolution? Again, mental gymnastics. And the brain power they devote to this gymnastics would probably used by an evolutionary biologist to actually cure something!

If you don�t agree with the above analysis, here�s a helpful analogy:

Quote:

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language - Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs - it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.

Prediction 2.2: Avatisms

Quote:

Anatomical atavisms are closely related conceptually to vestigial structures. An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population.

What do avatisms have to do with human medicine? Plenty:

Quote:

Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process," "coccygeal projection," "caudal appendage," and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails." Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations. In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans develops from the most distal end of the embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus�and it is usually benign in nature. The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move and contract. Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae.

So what does a creationist think of these types of structures:

Quote:

It should be noted here that the existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails, since true human tails are complex structures which have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae and cartilage, they can move and contract, and they are occasionally inherited. Furthermore, Gish, Menton, and ReMine all argue that human vestigial tails are not true tails if they lack vertebrae - an erroneous claim since M. sylvanus is a primate whose fleshy tail also lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23).

In this case, because of Gish�s creationist bias, he mis-diagnosed a human, and he also did not do his homework!

How would a creationist function in a laboratory that was studying the cause and treatment of avatisms? First, the head of the lab would have to waste a bunch of time proving to them that the avatisms even existed, since their existence is �shocking for religiously motivated anti-evolutionists.� Then you would have to waste a bunch more time showing them the genetic mechanisms behind the avatism, and showing them how they related to the animals that still have tails, and the genes that we still have in our DNA, etc, etc. I would not hire Duane Gish to work in this particular lab because his creationism would clearly be a handicap to this type of study.

Ok that�s part 1 � I�ll post part 2 after my anatomy test.

scigirl

scigirl · 10-17-2002, 06:38 AM

Vanderzyden - again I want to apologize for my assumption that you didn't write that reply involving the heart. It did sound well-educated, and written by someone who did some research in biology. Good for you. But then you went and make the following non-educated garbage statements:

Quote:

Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance?

or even

Quote:

Oh, don't blame God. Blame the ancestors who smoked cigarettes, were alcoholics, or got into some other kind of trouble.

Sigh. Well - for a minute there I thought there might be hope.

(scigirl desparately tries to aim Vanderzyden's intense bioligical critiques back at his own religion, and his insistence on using an ancient text written by middle eastern sheephearders as a science book.)

I want to say something else now that is a bit off topic. Vanderzyden, you have complained now many times about how we treat you here at infidels. How mean we are, and insulting.

However, let me point out the following:

I have never once casually mentioned your imminent death (well until now I guess) and gloated about the fact that you might burn in Hell for all eternity. Even when I was a Christian, I NEVER did that to someone - because it wasn't MY call, and not only that, it's cruel. My call was, and still is, to be a good person, and try to make good and moral decisions on a daily basis.

You have stated that we atheists are arrogant (I don't remember the thread). But how many times do fundamentalist Christians come here and act all smug with comments like "I'm going to Heaven you're going to Hell!" To me, that is not only arrogant, it is also insulting - and if it were up to me, I would consider it grounds for eviction from this board because I consider those death threats. Not because I believe in Hell (I don't), but the poster believes in it and is gleeful about it.

Similarly, if an infidel knew about someone's terminal illness and said, "Ha ha you are going to die in a year haha" I would ban him on the spot. So lucky for you Vander - I'm NOT an admin and this is NOT one of our policies.

Or diseases - you claim that a common embryological defect is somehow the fault of the parents or whatever. If I acted in that fashion as a doctor, without proof of my claim that it WAS the parent's fault - I could have my licence taken away! Not only that, but it's not true, and it's just mean.

But go ahead and walk around in your little righteous world, Vanderzyden. Yep you are a better person than me because you believe in one of the world's major religions (and reject the other ones).

The fact that you continue to come and post here gives me a little hope that you might change someday. But this hope is slowly dwindling when you make comments like you did above.

scigirl

Vanderzyden · 10-17-2002, 09:42 AM

Scigirl,

Yes, this is way "off-topic" for this forum, but it is probably best that we attempt to settle some issues. So, let's go.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Vanderzyden - again I want to apologize...

Well, I appreciate the apology. Although, I am not seeking apologies. Rather, I find it necessary (in the interest of efficiency) to avoid giving much attention to those who spend a considerable portion of their time in "ad hominem" attacks. There is so much exciting stuff to contemplate and discuss.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
(scigirl desparately tries to aim Vanderzyden's intense bioligical critiques back at his own religion, and his insistence on using an ancient text written by middle eastern sheephearders as a science book.)

Do you think you are more sophisticated than the biblical writers, scigirl? Interesting. Did I say the Bible was a science text? As I write this, again I am wondering if it is worth going to the trouble of responding to you, since you carry all this gross prejudice with you into every engagement.

Also, please remember that your reasoning that God has caused disease and suffering is quite narrow. Surely you realize that there are other plausible alternatives.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, don't blame God. Blame the ancestors who smoked cigarettes, were alcoholics, or got into some other kind of trouble.

I have never once casually mentioned your imminent death (well until now I guess) and gloated about the fact that you might burn in Hell for all eternity. Even when I was a Christian, I NEVER did that to someone - because it wasn't MY call, and not only that, it's cruel. My call was, and still is, to be a good person, and try to make good and moral decisions on a daily basis.

Whose gloating? I'm in the same position of any human. I don't say that I going to heaven, and the atheist is not. That is not for me to decide, so don't confuse me with others. However, you will see in many of my posts a concern about boldness and audacity of the atheist in saying there is no God, or, if there is a god then he cares nothing for humans. Most of what I hear is nothing but unsubstantiated, uncritical, empty claims.

Death threats? Come on, scigirl. What's wrong with raising the issue of death? Why is Pascal's wager so offensive? If the agnostic does not believe or is indifferent to the existence of God, then death and morality should be of little or no concern. Surely, we will all die. If the atheist is so confident that there is no God, and no afterlife, then such questions should not be troubling in the least. But, as it typically happens, the emotional reaction betrays what the atheist really thinks: she's not sure. Why can't she just admit that and talk about it?

Quote:

"Who knows if death might not be the best thing to happen to a man?" -- Socrates

Anyway, what does the atheist expect in response when she is found to be a design critic? Certainly, she should expect to hear a counterpoint raised. If there is a Creator, then it is quite reasonable to ask how she--a limited creature--will criticize God if she meets him face to face.

Quote:

"Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

-- Job 38:2-3

You know scigirl, the problem of evil can be discussed in forums like this. But of course we wouldn't go to a hospital room and speak in abstract terms. However, many who have experienced suffering do not turn away from God, but draw closer to him as a result of their suffering. He we have it from a former atheist:

Quote:

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

-- C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

The atheist often makes God out to be a cosmic prankster. But perhaps you have read in the Bible about the great, immeasurable concern of God for men:

Quote:

Matthew 10:28 -- Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

John 11:32 -- When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied.
35Jesus wept.
36Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
But go ahead and walk around in your little righteous world, Vanderzyden. Yep you are a better person than me because you believe in one of the world's major religions (and reject the other ones).

Again, I would insist that you do not know what I believe. You are simply guessing. You do not ask. You tell. As for righteousness, scigirl, I would say that I have none.

Quote:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

-- Isaiah 64:6

There are only two kinds of men: the righteous, who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners who believe themselves righteous.

-- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
The fact that you continue to come and post here gives me a little hope that you might change someday. But this hope is slowly dwindling when you make comments like you did above.

Yes, I want to change, but not in the way you are thinking. Indeed, I often do what I do not want to do. But change will not come from myself alone. I must ask, in humility, for help in transforming away from what I know myself to be.

Vanderzyden

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Dr Rick · 10-17-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Do you think you are more sophisticated than the biblical writers, scigirl?

I know she is; those that wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat, snakes and Jackasses talk, virgins give birth, rabbits chew cud, and four-legged creatures fly, and menstrating women are filth. They knew nothing about the scientific method and nothing about our origins.

They were ignorant; scigirl is well-educated.

Quote:

Did I say the Bible was a science text?

You use the nonsense and contradictions of the Bible to try to argue against science.

Quote:

As I write this, again I am wondering if it is worth going to the trouble of responding to you, since you carry all this gross prejudice with you into every engagement.

Pot, kettle, black.

Quote:

Also, please remember that your reasoning that God has caused disease and suffering is quite narrow. Surely you realize that there are other plausible alternatives.

...such as evolution and natural selection.

Quote:

Whose gloating? I'm in the same position of any human. I don't say that I going to heaven, and the atheist is not. That is not for me to decide, so don't confuse me with others. However, you will see in many of my posts a concern about boldness and audacity of the atheist in saying there is no God, or, if there is a god then he cares nothing for humans. Most of what I hear is nothing but unsubstantiated, uncritical, empty claims.

Your posts are mostly unsubstantiated, uncritical, empty claims.

Quote:

Anyway, what does the atheist expect in response when she is found to be a design critic? Certainly, she should expect to hear a counterpoint raised. If there is a Creator, then it is quite reasonable to ask how she--a limited creature--will criticize God if she meets him face to face.

What will you say to Allah before he casts you into eternal torment?

Quote:

The atheist often makes God out to be a cosmic prankster. But perhaps you have read in the Bible about the great, immeasurable concern of God for men

Most of whom he will consign to Hell, in His mercy and love. Right.

Quote:

Yes, I want to change, but not in the way you are thinking. Indeed, I often do what I do not want to do. But change will not come from myself alone. I must ask, in humility, for help in transforming away from what I know myself to be.

Yuck: that's a pathetically self-hating viewpoint.

Rick

lpetrich · 10-17-2002, 10:52 AM

Lotsa comments here.

I think that scigirl is referring to Phylip's command-line nature; I've built it on my home machine, which runs MacOS X.

Vanderzyden:
Rather, I find it necessary (in the interest of efficiency) to avoid giving much attention to those who spend a considerable portion of their time in "ad hominem" attacks.

But why act as if one is so thin-skinned that one can only notice that? VZ, you have been violating the teachings of the one you call your lord and savior; he taught that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek -- and you are doing no such thing, O VZ.

scigirl:
(scigirl desparately tries to aim Vanderzyden's intense bioligical critiques back at his own religion, and his insistence on using an ancient text written by middle eastern sheephearders as a science book.)
VZ:
Do you think you are more sophisticated than the biblical writers, scigirl? Interesting. Did I say the Bible was a science text? ...

If it is not a science text, then don't act as if it is one. It's that simple.

VZ:
Also, please remember that your reasoning that God has caused disease and suffering is quite narrow. Surely you realize that there are other plausible alternatives.

Except that that is a necessary conclusion according to the hypothesis of God's omnipotence. And the Biblical God is indeed depicted as having caused lots of disease and suffering. This is a supposedly omnipotent being, one who could create Heaven, populate it, and be done with it.

VZ:
Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance? ...

scigirl:
I have never once casually mentioned your imminent death (well until now I guess) and gloated about the fact that you might burn in Hell for all eternity. ...
VZ:
Whose gloating? ... However, you will see in many of my posts a concern about boldness and audacity of the atheist in saying there is no God, or, if there is a god then he cares nothing for humans. Most of what I hear is nothing but unsubstantiated, uncritical, empty claims.

So what? How is that any different from denying the deities of religions other than yours, O VZ?

VZ:
Death threats? Come on, scigirl. What's wrong with raising the issue of death? Why is Pascal's wager so offensive? ...

Because it considers only a limited subset of alternatives. Vanderzyden, would you enjoy being subjected to an Islamic version of Pascal's Wager? A Hindu version? A Hellenic-pagan version? Or even a version based on some law of karma that rewards people for being atheists?

And does Pascal's Wager really prove anything?

VZ:
"Who knows if death might not be the best thing to happen to a man?" -- Socrates

Then why not off oneself and be done with it?

(a lot of VZ's waving of the Bible deleted)

scigirl:
But go ahead and walk around in your little righteous world, Vanderzyden. Yep you are a better person than me because you believe in one of the world's major religions (and reject the other ones).
VZ:
Again, I would insist that you do not know what I believe. You are simply guessing. You do not ask. You tell. As for righteousness, scigirl, I would say that I have none.

If VZ chooses to hide his beliefs, he has no right to complain about others coming to erroneous conclusions about them.

And self-pity is often considered very gross.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Wyz_sub10 · 10-17-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

rbochnermd :...such as evolution and natural selection.

scigirl · 10-17-2002, 05:16 PM

Vanderzyden,

Quote:

Do you think you are more sophisticated than the biblical writers, scigirl?

Did I say that? No, I did not say that. I do, however, think that my biology text, which was written based on careful observation and experimentation for the purposes of learning about biology is a better guide about biology than the Bible. That should be obvious to anyone.

Quote:

Did I say the Bible was a science text?

Well you said you believe this, in another thread:
"2. The Bible is a (i) collection of authentic, reliable historical records, and (ii) accurately describes the "human condition".
So, if scientific theories about the human condition conflict with biblical descriptions, which side do you take? Such as, the origin of humans AND their conditions, and also the reason why humans get disease and why they suffer.

Quote:

Also, please remember that your reasoning that God has caused disease and suffering is quite narrow. Surely you realize that there are other plausible alternatives.

Vander, you still don't get it. I don't believe in God. I do not believe that God as you define him exists. Ergo, I don't believe that He is responsible for diseases or any other thing.

Let me repeat myself: I am an atheist.

Now, when I am debating intelligent design with you, I, for the sake of argument, assume that this god of yours exists, and check whether your description of god fits the biological evidence. Like a jury considering all the possible suspects for a crime. They may state a premise like "Jack did it," then see if the evidence either supports or refutes that claim.

And like I said in another post: If evolution is true, and DID create us, than it has to account for both the good and the bad facets of our body. And it does.

You are the one who brought the designer into the critique. You can't have it both ways. Like in a courtroom - if the defense attorney brings up the suspect's credibility, than the prosecution has every right to examine that credibility.

When I ask the question, "Did the Christian god, create the world that we see today as described in the Bible?" I find the answer to this question to be a very resounding "No he did not." Does this prove that God doesn't exist? No, but it makes it more likely, IMHO.

Quote:

Whose gloating? I'm in the same position of any human. I don't say that I going to heaven, and the atheist is not....Death threats? Come on, scigirl. What's wrong with raising the issue of death? Why is Pascal's wager so offensive?

Come on Vander. You have brought up the whole "afterlife" claims on numerous occasions (NOT so subtley implying that people around here are going to hell) in threads that had absolutely nothing to do with death or hell. They were about genetics, or the circulatory system!

Let's review what you have done:
In the middle of the heart thread, you said,

Quote:

MrDarwin must be very highly qualified, although he is incapable of choosing the place of his birth or preventing his eventual death...
Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance?

Another time you said this:

Quote:

I am prepared for the future with the highest confidence. Are you?

Hmm, righteousness? Um, yeah.

You asked, "If the atheist is so confident that there is no God, and no afterlife, then such questions should not be troubling in the least. "

I find it offensive that Christians such as yourself bring up the subject of an afterlife, and IMPLYING that we might go to hell, when we were not even talking about it! It's not the concept of hell per se that troubles me - it's the fact that many Christians are smug about their place in heaven and my place in hell. Those beliefs, I think, have serious consequences for life on Earth (that we can all agree DOES exist) and that's why I care. I have seen this smugness from you in these and other threads in Existence of God, so don't try to act all innocent about it!

Quote:

Certainly, she should expect to hear a counterpoint raised. If there is a Creator, then it is quite reasonable to ask how she--a limited creature--will criticize God if she meets him face to face.

What are you talking about? I bring up the points to refute the existence of such a creator, not to criticise Him! And I already told you what I would ask this non-existent deity, and it has to do with UTIs!

Quote:

(religious mumbo jumbo)

I've read CS lewis and guess what - I'm still an atheist! Maybe if I hadn't actually read the Bible, I'd still be a Christian though! haha

scigirl

scigirl · 10-17-2002, 05:17 PM

Oh, and do you have any comments on the science stuff I posted?

sci

RBH · 10-17-2002, 05:39 PM

This is perhaps not the appropriate forum for this remark, but I have to say something. VZ wrote

Quote:

The atheist often makes God out to be a cosmic prankster. But perhaps you have read in the Bible about the great, immeasurable concern of God for men:

When I was a Methodist reading the KJV of the Bible, these verses, First Samuel 15:2-3, particularly struck me:

Quote:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Infants and suckling babies?

RBH

Vanderzyden · 10-17-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
I find it offensive that Christians such as yourself bring up the subject of an afterlife, and IMPLYING that we might go to hell, when we were not even talking about it! It's not the concept of hell per se that troubles me - it's the fact that many Christians are smug about their place in heaven and my place in hell. Those beliefs, I think, have serious consequences for life on Earth (that we can all agree DOES exist) and that's why I care. I have seen this smugness from you in these and other threads in Existence of God, so don't try to act all innocent about it!

Yes, it does seem that you are offended at many things. And yet, I have not insulted you, as you have done to me on many occasions. First, it was the term Darwinist, which is widely employed in a variety of literature. Now, you are indicating offense at the mention of afterlife. Well, I am not going to stop because you haven't thought things through carefully. Moreover, you will recall that you joined that thread after I made my contribution, and you started in with the same ol' insults and diversions. Then you insinuate that I am plagerizing. You go even further by claiming to know precisely what I believe. And, to top it off, you categorically reject all of the writers of the Bible as mere--how did you call it?--"sheephearders". As with others here, it is obvious that you have no clue what you are saying. (Note: In the other thread, the word design was used explicitly. So, what do you think we were talking about?)

I am not implying that you're going to hell. However, it has become very clear to me that you have not examined things as carefully as you say. When I press some issues, you flatly avoid them. It is so very, very obvious that you are defensive. No one reacts to me in quite the same way that you do. Some engage me seriously, others blow me off. But I obviously rub you the wrong way.

What you perceive as "smug" is nothing more than a certainty that comes with an intense, multi-faceted search. If you've been following me around in the EoG and BC&A threads, you will notice that I am undaunted in the face of heavy attack. You will see that I encourage people to find contradictions in the Bible, or demonstrate a "sub-optimal". Bring it on--I enjoy it! I learn and strengthen my position in the process. And, as expected, I have found only a few opponents in these forums who have been genuinely critical of their beliefs.

Oh, you also mentioned this:

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
The Bible is a (i) collection of authentic, reliable historical records, and (ii) accurately describes the "human condition". So, if scientific theories about the human condition conflict with biblical descriptions, which side do you take?

Again you insinuate that the Bible is in error. Care to substantiate that?

The human condition is that we are all corrupt. I'm sure that you have seen me write here that every human does regrettable things everyday. Many people inevitably experience guilt when they do or think wrong things. Now, what does your biology text have to say about that? Nothing.

Vanderzyden

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

10-17-2002, 10:52 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Lotsa comments here. I think that scigirl is referring to Phylip's command-line nature; I've built it on my home machine, which runs MacOS X. Vanderzyden: Rather, I find it necessary (in the interest of efficiency) to avoid giving much attention to those who spend a considerable portion of their time in "ad hominem" attacks. But why act as if one is so thin-skinned that one can only notice that? VZ, you have been violating the teachings of the one you call your lord and savior; he taught that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek -- and you are doing no such thing, O VZ. scigirl: (scigirl desparately tries to aim Vanderzyden's intense bioligical critiques back at his own religion, and his insistence on using an ancient text written by middle eastern sheephearders as a science book.) VZ: Do you think you are more sophisticated than the biblical writers, scigirl? Interesting. Did I say the Bible was a science text? ... If it is not a science text, then don't act as if it is one. It's that simple. VZ: Also, please remember that your reasoning that God has caused disease and suffering is quite narrow. Surely you realize that there are other plausible alternatives. Except that that is a necessary conclusion according to the hypothesis of God's omnipotence. And the Biblical God is indeed depicted as having caused lots of disease and suffering. This is a supposedly omnipotent being, one who could create Heaven, populate it, and be done with it. VZ: Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance? ... scigirl: I have never once casually mentioned your imminent death (well until now I guess) and gloated about the fact that you might burn in Hell for all eternity. ... VZ: Whose gloating? ... However, you will see in many of my posts a concern about boldness and audacity of the atheist in saying there is no God, or, if there is a god then he cares nothing for humans. Most of what I hear is nothing but unsubstantiated, uncritical, empty claims. So what? How is that any different from denying the deities of religions other than yours, O VZ? VZ: Death threats? Come on, scigirl. What's wrong with raising the issue of death? Why is Pascal's wager so offensive? ... Because it considers only a limited subset of alternatives. Vanderzyden, would you enjoy being subjected to an Islamic version of Pascal's Wager? A Hindu version? A Hellenic-pagan version? Or even a version based on some law of karma that rewards people for being atheists? And does Pascal's Wager really prove anything? VZ: "Who knows if death might not be the best thing to happen to a man?" -- Socrates Then why not off oneself and be done with it? (a lot of VZ's waving of the Bible deleted) scigirl: But go ahead and walk around in your little righteous world, Vanderzyden. Yep you are a better person than me because you believe in one of the world's major religions (and reject the other ones). VZ: Again, I would insist that you do not know what I believe. You are simply guessing. You do not ask. You tell. As for righteousness, scigirl, I would say that I have none. If VZ chooses to hide his beliefs, he has no right to complain about others coming to erroneous conclusions about them. And self-pity is often considered very gross. [ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2002, 05:17 PM	#8
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Oh, and do you have any comments on the science stuff I posted? sci

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.