51. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166676 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:27 am

How is evolution plausible and proven in mathamatical modeling?

Well the fact you asked that question is positive, but shows you have a lot more reading to do! Even if it is a case of know your enemy...

I'm certainly not the best person to explain the maths, as that was never my strong point, but essentially setting up a computer simulation of dna with given values of: the rate of reproduction, isolation and mutation, scientists have shown evolution is likely. More likely than some initial conservative estimates.

Incase you are wondering, the values used to program the system are derived from observations of life today, and not simply plucked out of someone's mind or tweaked for ideal results!!

52. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166656 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:17 am

Back to personal attacks. You are showing your lack of confidence in true glory. Does not the immpossible odds of evolution bother you? No, because you have no other choice. Believe the immpossible rather then the unthinkable. Pretty sad.

Yawn. The odds of evolution are far from impossible. It is highly plausible and proven in mathematical modelling. The evidence for evolution at the molecular level is compelling.

Unfortunately, it is not that easy to understand (far from impossible though). Before you dismiss evolution, you should have a thorough grounding in the science. That would take time and effort on your part.

53. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166640 by newskin on April 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

You may not know this, but every single ID/Theist?Christian who comes here does the exact same thing. You are as common as a sea gull at the beach. So you will have to excuse us for getting annoyed at your anti-logic.

Too true. Some even publish whole books in this manner!

As for the tail bone etc... It is interesting that God's mysterious ways always seem to turn out looking like a lack of design. And precisely like what evolution by natural selection would look like.

You know, as an ex molecular biology student, the one that always fascinated me was the mitochondria. Ferrying DNA to and fro, seems like awfully bad design to me!

54. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151952 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Bonzai:

But the original accusation you made was the little girl died "because the parents believe in God",

It may not be clear from the article (and those without biological/mecial backgrounds could be excused from knowing) but ketoacidosis is caused by a build up of things called ketone bodies which are made when your body starts to consume its own protein to generate sugar for the brain. This doesn't happen overnight and the little girl would have been in an obvious state of distress for some time.

Her parents knew she was ill, as they were praying for her recovery. You may have skipped what the parents said in the article:

apparently they didn't have enough faith

Now if they didn't beleive in god i feel pretty safe in saying that they would have dispensed with the prayer and consulted a doctor immediately, what else would they do? As i said, even an idiot knows what a hospital is. It's a real stretch to assert that a non-religious person would have acted in the same way, more so than to say that they wouldn't and so Ockham's razor swings...

55. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151951 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I don't think that is in anyway simple minded to suggest that this girls parents faith was culpable for her death. I also think my point on evidence stands even if you have come out of the closet.

You may want to review what people have been posting, as no-one is suggesting that all christians would act this way. Enough would. The point i feel that was being made was that even one though,is too many.

You should make your point of view clearer in future so i dont waste my keystrokes and the real issue (ie your problem with the logic) could have been addressed. You're not the only one who is a stickler for it...

56. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151944 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Bonzai, Im afraid i cannot help but raise a smile whenever the religious get so up tight about evidence. It seems you are happy to base your whole philosophy, and life, on something that you take on faith but require detailed evidence for anything else!

I am reminded of Michael Behe during the Kansas trial when the judge pointed out that if a missing link was found, he would simply require two more to fill the new gaps!

As you asked:

You claim there is a Christian reason to not see doctor, give me one. The onus is on you

The doctrine of prayer. As already stated but I am beggining to understand you are have selective vision.

The contributors here don't make much a point

The fact that you said that leads me to beleive you have read different posts to me. Are there now different versions of RD.net as there are The God Delusion?

Finally, as again you have not grasped it, I am saying that modern christians go to the doctor (as you have), so why bother with prayer? I am also saying that god made them ill in the first place.

57. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151931 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Bonsai:

As I argued, there is no "Christian" reason that prevents them from seeing a doctors

Oh dear oh dear, you are a classic slippery christian customer!

You did not argue, you merely asserted that with some weak anecdote. You have adressed no points from any of the contributers and have meerly seemed to suggest that modern christians accept that prayer is a load of boloney and seek help from doctors.

58. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151911 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 4:43 pm

No, believing in God doesn't mean they have to deny her medication

Here you and i agree, but they clearly thought it did. However even an idiot knows what a hospital is and what it is for; it seems the only reason they did not take her to one is because they truly believed prayer alone would work. At this point we are in agreement again, that is truly an idiotic notion!

Whether or not god provided the doctor to cure the disease he presumably created is a mute point. They clearly hadn't got his message, so voracious was their praying and a girl died.

Way to dodge the wider question by the way.

And im afraid your point was pre-empted, with thanks to Steve Z:

"That's not MY Christianity"....

59. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151897 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Ta da!

I am not sure why so many here seem to think that all Christians should somehow apologize for or excuse for such behaviour. The assumption is that somehow these crazy parents are doing what good Christians are supposed to do

Can you not see how ridiculous a notion it is that god would set up this girls illness as some kind of test for her parents? A particularly perverse test if the solution is not to pray as the bible says but to seek help from modern medicine!

There are no cheap points being scored here, this girl died because her parents believed in god. Misguided or otherwise

60. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151869 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm

How can one defend the indefensible?

Can't be done, but you might at least expect them to show up and play with language as is typical...

61. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151859 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm

That's why we should show creationism for what it is. It's funny enough without having to lie about it.

No further arguement here!

62. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151856 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm

It is sad to live in a family where you can't bring up the topic of religion at all because they all take offense from your position rather than being able to discuss things objectively.

RAmen to that!

My grandparents are the same. Ive seen them genuinely upset as they consider that their atheist children/grandchildren are going to hell. I was always favourite grandchild, and i dont think my chosen degree in molecular cell biology went down well at all!

63. Beware the Believers

Comment #151854 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 3:04 pm

As a biologist Richard you of all people should know that age is merely a state of mind (or possibly your telomeres!).

I dont find overt/slapstick humour amusing and im a spritely 24! It's just plain poor i'm afraid.

64. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151846 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm

These Pastafarians must learn of the true God, John Frum.

Blasphemy!! Although His Noodleyness explicitly forbids harming (let alone killing) other humans, talk of The Frum is a convenient exception!

Best beware, or you may receive powdered pasta in the post....

65. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151843 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Aiden 86 - the article severely mischaracterises the creationist position.

I agree to an extent, but creationists hardly do a good job of explaining the existance of dinosaurs which is what i think the author was getting at.

66. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151836 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 2:37 pm

The flipside to this of course (if you are a theist) is that God intended this girl to die horribly and prematurely.

That would be a most abhorrent thing to me, if i beleived.

67. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151827 by newskin on March 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Bobby Henderson is a true prophet and Pasterfarianism is the one true way.

The spaghetti monster is the one true god. This is self evident as it is the simplest explainantion. I mean if you were an alien and came across the Earth would you say it was all created by an indicisive god who made so many mistakes he had to send his son to sort them out or would you say that it was created by His Noodleyness, who makes no mistakes whatsoever.

By the way, don't even think of pictorialising Bobby.

68. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80041 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Good point Bonzai --- and yet Christians believe in free will anyway. They believe that all people are equally capable of performing moral acts.

So why attach the rest of the stipulations? What's with the obsession with peoples sex lives etc? If you deprive christianity of the moral high ground, I'm afraid all it boils down to in todays world is hedging your bets regarding death and the afterlife. In which case you have an 1/n (where n = every religion ever postulated in the history of humanity) chance of going to heaven. Well, it could be you...

69. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80035 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Sinbad,

I am aware that the reverse of this arguement is oft dismissed on these forums, but i wonder how much knowledge you posess with respect to the science of evolution. Now i am not suggesting that you have an indepth knowledge of genetics (else you may be making a fortune working for Glaxo), however to be so sure that 'god created everything' is a big step.
I majored (to use your term, i am English) in genetics. As such i was struck by the similarities, progressive alterations and imperfections of the genetic code in all life. Now i do not wish to reduce this to a technical argument, but from your statement i am lead to beleive that you must have some knowledge of this and dismissed such phenomena as: 'the genetic code', transposons, mtDNA, introns etc as god having at best a lazy day - if not a decidedly off day...

Also, i agree with most of your final statement. However as a christian, i am intrigued with how you balance your belief that the state should not intrude in marriage arrangements with what god says. Also, if the state should not intrude on this issue, what grounds does it have to do so on any other? And what if your president is christian, is his duty not to god before the state?

70. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80028 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm

That is because Christian theology is inconsistent. Free will is not consistent with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Cheque please!

Not only that but god is not needed to explain anything and indeed explains nothing. If we accepted Christian dogma, there would be no medical research (Why? Because to intervene medically is surely against god's will) As a result, millions of people die needlessley each year (beleivers or otherwise). Where does your ethical arguement from religion stand then?

71. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80025 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Martha,

If living in fear of not having health insurance is your only concern you are indeed blessed! Hitchen's does not imply America is a eutopia, merely a country where a person is not persecuted because of their ideals (by the state, there is no accounting for the inevitable bigotted individual0.
As an aside, as a UK citizen who does not have to worry about health insurance, i have to say that such a position is not as perfect as you may imagine. What use is free medical care if it is seriously delayed, underfunded and generally downright substandard?

72. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80021 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm

I have disclosed it before and have no problem doing so. I am a Christian, Protestant and generally evangelical.

Excellent. Glad we cleared that one up. Apologies if you had said so before. I am reasonably new to these forums and you can appreciate the difficulty in reasoning with an unknown entity, so to speak...

However, i must refer you to my original (although not in a cognitive sense) point... since you clearly have a fine grasp of logic and in particular literacy, why are you not using it to interrogate your own beliefs before coming after the non-beleivers? Why are you not Jewish or Muslim or Hindu etc?

I must also contest your assertion regarding my point about the deists i.e. that it is a straw-man argument. If you claim to know a god, but not any that follows any dogma/scripture. That's all great, but even you must concede that such a 'personal god' has no relevance to anyone else.

Finally, as a christian, would you restrict the personal freedoms of others? What i mean is, are you against abortion, gay marriage, embryonic/zoonic research?

73. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80014 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Touche Dr Benway (a little dissapointed i missed that sitter!)

74. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80012 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Further to PeterK

Take a look at the current encumbant, banning stem cell research on 'religious grounds' when he has absolutley no idea of the science behind it; I bet you Bushy couldn't tell his guanine from his cytosine!
As a result this potentially millions of people will suffer unecessarily. Don't beleive me? In the progressive UK (never thought i would say that) we may have a treatment for muscular dystrophy as a direct result of such experiments...

75. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80003 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I claim neither that I can prove God nor that my preferred religion is true. As to both issues, I have provisionally concluded where the evidence points as well as reasoned and inferred certain conclusions therefrom. It is as much art as science (which is precisely my point).

So what exactly is your point of view? Are you religious? A deist? Agnostic? Atheist? Whilst i can see the undoubted benefits, it is a little unfair to argue from an undisclosed viewpoint....

Also with respect to your point about everything we know and beleive is based in science whilst i will conceed not everything we beleive is based in science (although that does not necessarily mean it exists outside it's control) I submit that everything we 'know' is firmly based in science....

76. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #79998 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Ludovician217

I think you have missed the point of the column. Dawkins does not seek to refute any of the arguements but merely highlight the use of the phrase 'i'm an atheist but'.
The phrase is entirely superfluous to any arguement and therefore i beleive, is only added as a prefix to any argument in order to deceive the reader (ipse dixit, to follow your flashy latin terminology). You will find few atheists feel the need to open with this phrase as their arguments make their position clear.

77. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79992 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Rtambree

I wouldn't waste your breath, Sinbad is using the same old trick of applying logic to the opposing arguement whilst conveniently ommiting it from their own. I wonder whether he/she has applied the same logic to 'Which relgion should i beleive?'. The only repsonse to which is to claim you are a 'deist' beleiving in some unknown all-encompassing god. Such an approach is fine, as long as you realise that this position exempts you from any debate (what use is debating the unquestionable?) and offers no answers to anything.

78. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #56575 by newskin on July 16, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I'm sorry, correct me if I am wrong, but is his arguement: Dawkins, you can't prove God doesn't exist therefore he does. Nananana!

79. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56571 by newskin on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I don't understand this idea that there is more to be discovered in Christianity through indepth study. Surely everything that is not in the bible is the word of man, bearing his interpretation and is therefore essentially worthless.
As any good scientist knows, you reference original primary source material, in this case the bible. It seems the reason this argument is employed is because most Christians cannot bring themselves to beleive the literal content of the bible and must console themselves with some hidden (deeply hidden) inner meaning...

80. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #56565 by newskin on July 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I resent the term 'militant atheists'. If someone were to talk of 'militant religious fundamentalists', I would fully expect them to be refering to armed individuals. When last i checked there were no atheists strapped with bombs killing people in the name of their cause.

81. The New New Atheism

Comment #56564 by newskin on July 16, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Does he not see the irony of accusing atheists of being motivated by money? More of the same old 'lets not take the Bible literally' and 'we would all be murdering raping animals without religion' type arguments again I'm afraid. I would expect more from somebody who teaches arguing for a living...