What Does It Mean To Be Human? Don’t Ask A Darwinist

MatSpirit:

LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MATTER. There’s no magic involved.

LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MORE THAN MATTER. Design is not magic, dippy-do. ET

MatSpirit claims that "You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.<,,, you have presented precisely zip to say it was life first." Actually, that claim is false, and proves that MatSpirit is NOT reading for comprehension. in post 88 I specifically referenced the Big Bang and the falsification of realism,

indeed today, not even close to ten thousand years hence, we find abundant evidence that matter has not existed for all eternity, (you know the whole Big Bang thing?), where space-time, matter-energy, themselves were created? Not to mention the falsification of realism in quantum mechanics that proves that consciousness must precede material reality. Thus Louis Pasteur was very much correct in his intuition. Matter, according to our best evidence from both cosmology and quantum mechanics, certainly has NOT existed for all eternity and life itself, (i.e. God), not matter, is what has existed through all eternity. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human-dont-ask-a-darwinist/#comment-688468

MatSpirit then claims that " LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MATTER. There’s no magic involved." Yet, as has been repeatedly pointed out to MatSpirit and other atheistic materialists, living organism are not made of ONLY matter. Besides matter and energy, life is also made of information, and information ONLY comes from a mind.

Stephen Meyer: DNA and Information https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg

Then MatSpirit once again moved the deck chairs around with the whole 'significantly improved longevity correlated with going to church' thing. Apparently he wants to claim that the increase in longevity is due solely to socialization. MatSpirit should have taken care to read my links more closely for comprehension. He would have saved embarrassing himself once again:

Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018 Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%. https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

bornagain77

BA77: "MatSpirit also derided going to church as improving longevity, but the facts are what they are no matter how he tries to avoid it." I also posted some of the reasons why going to church (or [gasp] temple or {gasp gasp} Mosque) or any other activity gets you out of the house and embedded in the society around you, but of course that probably didn't make it pass your Christian colored filter. MatSpirit

BA77 @ 101: "MatSpirit, Uh, please read for comprehension." I did and I suggest you do the same, although I don't think you're really capable of that, at least for anything that threatens your religion. Here's what you've posted at least twice in this thread: "I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. >>No, I do not judge it impossible.<>You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.< life relationship has only gotten stronger while you have presented precisely zip to say it was life first. LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MATTER. There's no magic involved. MatSpirit

MatSpirit, Uh, please read for comprehension. When Louis Pasteur, a Christian mind you, states "that life has existed during eternity", he is making reference to God as the source for all life, certainly not 'molten life' as you falsely imagine in your fevered materialistic imagination.

Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation – June 21, 2015 “Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.” [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.] https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....eneration/

Here is a verse to help you understand what Christians actually believe about life existing for all eternity

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Particularly note Verse 4 if you will MatSpirit, "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Then Matspirit, after revealing his complete ignorance about what Christians actually believe about 'life existing for eternity', goes on about healthcare. Yet, he did not refute my points, but he just kind of pushed the deck chairs around a little without really addressing the meat of my points,, so I will simply relist my points: Canada would basically be a third world country without the US for a trading partner,

These animated maps show Canada has so much more to lose in a trade war than the U.S. BY MAX HARTSHORN GLOBAL NEWS – July 4, 2018 Canada and the U.S. share the largest and most comprehensive bilateral trade relationship on earth, according to the U.S. State Department. Both the U.S. and Canadian government claim that trade between the two countries generates over $1 trillion worth of commerce and investment annually, and is responsible for millions of jobs on both sides of the border. But the trade relationship is far from equal. Publicly available data from the U.S. and Canadian governments, along with trade statistics from the UN, show just how critical business with the U.S. is to Canada’s economy. The U.S., on the other hand, is both less reliant on international trade than Canada and far less reliant on Canada as a trade partner than we are on the U.S. https://globalnews.ca/news/4297411/canada-us-trade-war-animated-maps/

Europeans and Canadians both take massive advantage of Americans with unfair drug pricing and Trump, as is characteristic of him in establishing fair trade deals, is working in a bipartisan manner to close the loophole(s) that allows the Europeans and Canadians to cheat Americans in drug pricing.

America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs – 2019 Excerpt: The Europeans and Canadians (as well as the rest of the world) are free-riding on the back of American medical innovators. European countries and Canada – our trading allies – impede access and set artificially low prices for prescription medicines. If U.S. companies refuse to acquiesce on prices, these foreign governments threaten to steal their patents by using compulsory licensing. It’s that simple: Europe and Canada refuse to pay their fair share forcing Americans to pay more. Americans pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. In 2016, U.S. spending on pharmaceuticals totaled more than $450 billion – a rate that’s two to six times higher than the world average.,, With the USTR’s 2018 Special 301 Report, the Trump administration is showing a bipartisan way forward on drug prices. President Trump could accomplish what both Presidents Bush and Obama failed to do: put forward a bipartisan effort by leveraging trade agreements to help Americans get greater access to the medicines they need at prices they can afford. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/02/america_needs_to_stop_subsidizing_europe_and_canadas_prescription_drugs.html How the United States Subsidizes the World Matt Wiltshire explains that a comparison between national healthcare expenditures is flawed and should result in altering the goals (and policies for achieving those goals) of government intervention. – July 12, 2018 Excerpt: I can show that Western social democracies leverage American spending to their benefit (in much the same way they do with NATO). In effect Americans subsidize the cost of European and Canadian healthcare in such a way that comparing international prices results in, at best, misleading information and, at worst, a misguided path that ends in the total elimination of private medical research. https://bigjolly.com/how-united-states-subsidizes-world/

and again, "one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.”

Five (Inconvenient) Facts About Medicare For All “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.” https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/

MatSpirit also derided going to church as improving longevity, but the facts are what they are no matter how he tries to avoid it. bornagain77

BA77 @ 91 Canada's population is 38 million - about the size of California. Whatever are you getting on about who would win a trade war? MatSpirit

All: Remember Part D Medicare? It's the part that pays for drugs. It was passed in the Bush administration. Remember that funny little part that Bush stuck in there, the part that forbids Medicare to negotiate drug prices? That's why medicare pays $300.00 for a $30.00 insulin pen. That's why medicare pays top dollar for ALL drugs. Canada's Medicare negotiates prices and pays much less. Other countries negotiate prices and pay much less. Your hospital negotiates prices and pays much less than you do. Only Medicare and people without health insurance pay full prices for drugs. Except that without health care, most people don't have the $300.00 to spare, so they go without and eventually die. BA, I was surprised to read you've had health care all or most of your life. I used to read your descriptions on this blog of how you lived before you became a Christian and frankly, I had pictured you as a down and outer. Now I find out you've had enough money for health insurance most of your life. Who paid for your health insurance when you were a baby? Did you get it through work as an adult? If you had a good enough job to pay health insurance, then I wonder if you might have been exaggerating your secular faults, as so many do after conversion. Also, you've brought up going to church as a prophylactic. That works with all religions, including Buddism, which is Atheist. It also works with marriage, bowling leagues, golf, softball and hundreds of other activities. Anything that gets you out of the house and interacting with other people extends your lifetime. If nothing else, when you have a heart attack, somebody is there to call the ambulance. A lot of activities that stop you from going to church also kill you early. Anybody living on the streets during a northern winter isn't going to church for instance, but they're only one really cold night away from death and getting worn down by sleeping on the streets every day. I'd like to see a really good study on what extends and shortens life in the real world, but it's so hard to measure. I notice that the study you recommend above looked at obituaries to see if they mention religion. If they did, then you're counted as a church goer. Wow! I used to have neighbors who fought every day. The husband was absolutely worthless. I once saw him sober. His wife earned all the money in the family. Neither ever went to church that I know of, but when he died, (at a rather advanced age) his obituary made him out to be a model Christian and possible candidate for sainthood. He would have shown up in the Christian column in your source. MatSpirit

BA77 @ 88 “Then MatSpirit states this non sequitur, “The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur’s day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years.” OK MatSpirit, did YOU even read what you yourself quoted?” Yes. Louis Pasteur claims that maybe life made matter. Yet we know today that all the matter on earth started out molten and no form of life we've ever found can live in lava. Lava is material, so material existed before any life existed on earth. Pasteur got that wrong, but you quoted him anyway because he agrees with you. As far as I can tell, that's your sole criterion for quoting. “Then after that huge blunder on MatSpirit’s part, he goes on to ask, “But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that’s good for the country? Or do you just think it’s cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company?” Yet IF MatSpirit would have actually read my post in 79, in the concluding remark from an expert on the subject, after extensive analysis, he would have found this sentence by the expert, “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.” https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/” Yes, we can bring down cost and cover millions more, but we've got FORTY MILLION more to cover. You never answered my questions: Do you think spending twice as much per capita as other countries and leaving 40 million Americans in the lurch is good for the country? Do you think it's cool to spend $300 taxpayer dollars on a $30.00 insulin pen? Another question: “One-size-fits-all Medicare” means you get sick, you go to the doctor and Medicare pays. I've been living with that for seven years. People in all the industrialized countries live quite well with that. Why is it supposed to be the wrong way forward? MatSpirit

Read the article for comprehension R.P. Canada would basically be a third world country without the US for a trading partner,

These animated maps show Canada has so much more to lose in a trade war than the U.S. BY MAX HARTSHORN GLOBAL NEWS – July 4, 2018 Canada and the U.S. share the largest and most comprehensive bilateral trade relationship on earth, according to the U.S. State Department. Both the U.S. and Canadian government claim that trade between the two countries generates over $1 trillion worth of commerce and investment annually, and is responsible for millions of jobs on both sides of the border. But the trade relationship is far from equal. Publicly available data from the U.S. and Canadian governments, along with trade statistics from the UN, show just how critical business with the U.S. is to Canada’s economy. The U.S., on the other hand, is both less reliant on international trade than Canada and far less reliant on Canada as a trade partner than we are on the U.S. https://globalnews.ca/news/4297411/canada-us-trade-war-animated-maps/

As well read these following articles for comprehension. Pronounce each word slowly if it helps:

America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs – 2019 Excerpt: The Europeans and Canadians (as well as the rest of the world) are free-riding on the back of American medical innovators. European countries and Canada – our trading allies – impede access and set artificially low prices for prescription medicines. If U.S. companies refuse to acquiesce on prices, these foreign governments threaten to steal their patents by using compulsory licensing. It’s that simple: Europe and Canada refuse to pay their fair share forcing Americans to pay more. Americans pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. In 2016, U.S. spending on pharmaceuticals totaled more than $450 billion – a rate that’s two to six times higher than the world average.,, With the USTR’s 2018 Special 301 Report, the Trump administration is showing a bipartisan way forward on drug prices. President Trump could accomplish what both Presidents Bush and Obama failed to do: put forward a bipartisan effort by leveraging trade agreements to help Americans get greater access to the medicines they need at prices they can afford. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/02/america_needs_to_stop_subsidizing_europe_and_canadas_prescription_drugs.html How the United States Subsidizes the World Matt Wiltshire explains that a comparison between national healthcare expenditures is flawed and should result in altering the goals (and policies for achieving those goals) of government intervention. – July 12, 2018 Excerpt: I can show that Western social democracies leverage American spending to their benefit (in much the same way they do with NATO). In effect Americans subsidize the cost of European and Canadian healthcare in such a way that comparing international prices results in, at best, misleading information and, at worst, a misguided path that ends in the total elimination of private medical research. https://bigjolly.com/how-united-states-subsidizes-world/

bornagain77

BA77

Reapers Plague also tries to divert attention away from the fact that Canada is very much dependent on America for its prosperity, (and thus is very much dependent on America for, basically, subsidizing its government run healthcare). Thus to repeat the animations for the proud but dependent Canadian, i.e. Reapers Plague:

I think you have a problem with economics. How does Canada spending more on US goods than US does on Canadian goods constitute a subsidy? We are talking about goods that are being bought from private companies. Private companies don’t subsidize their clients. On a similar note, why is Trump pushing to allow Americans to buy cheaper foreign drugs (much of them from Canada). We don’t subsidize our drug companies. Reapers Plague

Of related note:

How the United States Subsidizes the World Matt Wiltshire explains that a comparison between national healthcare expenditures is flawed and should result in altering the goals (and policies for achieving those goals) of government intervention. - July 12, 2018 Excerpt: I can show that Western social democracies leverage American spending to their benefit (in much the same way they do with NATO). In effect Americans subsidize the cost of European and Canadian healthcare in such a way that comparing international prices results in, at best, misleading information and, at worst, a misguided path that ends in the total elimination of private medical research. https://bigjolly.com/how-united-states-subsidizes-world/ America Needs to Stop Subsidizing Europe and Canada’s Prescription Drugs - 2019 Excerpt: The Europeans and Canadians (as well as the rest of the world) are free-riding on the back of American medical innovators. European countries and Canada – our trading allies – impede access and set artificially low prices for prescription medicines. If U.S. companies refuse to acquiesce on prices, these foreign governments threaten to steal their patents by using compulsory licensing. It’s that simple: Europe and Canada refuse to pay their fair share forcing Americans to pay more. Americans pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. In 2016, U.S. spending on pharmaceuticals totaled more than $450 billion – a rate that’s two to six times higher than the world average.,, With the USTR’s 2018 Special 301 Report, the Trump administration is showing a bipartisan way forward on drug prices. President Trump could accomplish what both Presidents Bush and Obama failed to do: put forward a bipartisan effort by leveraging trade agreements to help Americans get greater access to the medicines they need at prices they can afford. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/02/america_needs_to_stop_subsidizing_europe_and_canadas_prescription_drugs.html

bornagain77

Reapers Plague has a reading comprehension issue. To repeat, the solution to the problems within private healthcare are not found within government run healthcare: Again the concluding remark

Five (Inconvenient) Facts About Medicare For All “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.” https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/

Reapers Plague also tries to divert attention away from the fact that Canada is very much dependent on America for its prosperity, (and thus is very much dependent on America for, basically, subsidizing its government run healthcare). Thus to repeat the animations for the proud but dependent Canadian, i.e. Reapers Plague:

These animated maps show Canada has so much more to lose in a trade war than the U.S. BY MAX HARTSHORN GLOBAL NEWS – July 4, 2018 Canada and the U.S. share the largest and most comprehensive bilateral trade relationship on earth, according to the U.S. State Department. Both the U.S. and Canadian government claim that trade between the two countries generates over $1 trillion worth of commerce and investment annually, and is responsible for millions of jobs on both sides of the border. But the trade relationship is far from equal. Publicly available data from the U.S. and Canadian governments, along with trade statistics from the UN, show just how critical business with the U.S. is to Canada’s economy. The U.S., on the other hand, is both less reliant on international trade than Canada and far less reliant on Canada as a trade partner than we are on the U.S. https://globalnews.ca/news/4297411/canada-us-trade-war-animated-maps/

And please note that Reapers Plague, again, still refused to address the fact that people who believe in God live significantly longer than atheists do. That little factoid in and of itself kind of demolishes his entire atheistic worldview. But no matter, I'm sure that R.P. believes that government can fix that little problem too if only you give government enough of your money, bornagain77

BA77@81, yet your president keeps saying that Canada has a trade surplus with the US. Are you calling Trump a liar? Reapers Plague

BA77

Reapers Plague at 87, So what? I can claim many of the exact same things that you claim about not having to foot enormous medical bills because of emergency procedures, from the fact that I have been covered by private insurance, not government run healthcare, from childhood until now, practically my whole life.

So you are willing to bankrupt the millions of people who aren’t covered by private healthcare? That’s not very Christian of you. Besides, you ignore the fact that Canada still has private health coverage. ET

LoL! Canadians have what they do thanks to the USA.

Things like insulin, the pacemaker, open heart surgery, the discovery of T-cell receptors for cancer immunology, the discovery of transplantable stem cells, developing the HAART treatment to prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS, infant meningitis vaccine, identification of cystic fibrosis gene, use of aspirin for stroke prevention, discovery of heparin for blood clots, adding vitamin D to milk to prevent rickets, discovery of first cancer antigen, creation of the cobalt-60 bomb for radiation therapy, first combined vaccine for diphtheria pertussis and tetanus, Ebola vaccine, etc? Reapers Plague

Canadians are a proud lot though, so perhaps an animation or two to get the point across

These animated maps show Canada has so much more to lose in a trade war than the U.S. BY MAX HARTSHORN GLOBAL NEWS - July 4, 2018 Canada and the U.S. share the largest and most comprehensive bilateral trade relationship on earth, according to the U.S. State Department. Both the U.S. and Canadian government claim that trade between the two countries generates over $1 trillion worth of commerce and investment annually, and is responsible for millions of jobs on both sides of the border. But the trade relationship is far from equal. Publicly available data from the U.S. and Canadian governments, along with trade statistics from the UN, show just how critical business with the U.S. is to Canada’s economy. The U.S., on the other hand, is both less reliant on international trade than Canada and far less reliant on Canada as a trade partner than we are on the U.S. https://globalnews.ca/news/4297411/canada-us-trade-war-animated-maps/

bornagain77

LoL! Canadians have what they do thanks to the USA. ET

Reapers Plague at 87, So what? I can claim many of the exact same things that you claim about not having to foot enormous medical bills because of emergency procedures, from the fact that I have been covered by private insurance, not government run healthcare, from childhood until now, practically my whole life. So that specific criticism against private healthcare is irrelevant. Sure there are problems with private run healthcare, but they are not nearly as bad as the problems inherent in government run healthcare, as was outlined in post 79: Again, to repeat the concluding remark of the article, “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.”

Five Facts About Medicare For All Concluding remark: “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.” https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/

Of related note to improving mental and physical health, I note that the atheistic trolls on UD did not even attempt to address the fact, outlined in post 80, that believing in God is the single most important thing a person can personally do to increase their life expectancy:

Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16. “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/ Study: Religiously affiliated people live “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…” July 1, 2018 Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/ Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018 Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%. https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

Thus if the atheistic trolls on UD were really as concerned for healthcare as they want to pretend to be, then the number one thing that they themselves can do right now to greatly improve their own, as well as others, health, (both mental and physical health), is to personally embrace and publicly promote Christianity. bornagain77

MatSpirit asks me "do you even read the messages you cut and paste? I like to follow down your links and see where you went off the rails.", and then he quotes part of my quote from Louis Pasteur,

Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation – June 21, 2015 “Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.” [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.] https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/louis-pasteur-on-life-matter-and-spontaneous-generation/

Then MatSpirit states this non sequitur, "The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur’s day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years." OK MatSpirit, did YOU even read what you yourself quoted? Louis Pasteur did not claim that life came from "molten life", he claimed that "You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.,,, How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?". And indeed today, not even close to ten thousand years hence, we find abundant evidence that matter has not existed for all eternity, (you know the whole Big Bang thing?), where space-time, matter-energy, themselves were created? Not to mention the falsification of realism in quantum mechanics that proves that consciousness must precede material reality. Thus Louis Pasteur was very much correct in his intuition. Matter, according to our best evidence from both cosmology and quantum mechanics, certainly has NOT existed for all eternity and life itself, (i.e. God), not matter, is what has existed through all eternity.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Then after that huge blunder on MatSpirit's part, he goes on to ask, "But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that’s good for the country? Or do you just think it’s cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company?" Yet IF MatSpirit would have actually read my post in 79, in the concluding remark from an expert on the subject, after extensive analysis, he would have found this sentence by the expert,

"Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward." https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/

bornagain77

MatSprit

Do you even read messages replying to you? Or do you just grab something off your disk drive of crank literature and quote-mines of scientific papers?

Is this a trick question?

But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health...

And, in most instances, obtain poorer outcomes. When I was 17 I had surgery for scoliosis and spent three months in hospital. The only cost to my lower middle class parents was the cost of the rental TV in my hospital room. When I was 22 I had a collapsed lung and required surgery to patch it and a week in hospital. My only cost was my parking bill. After my three kids were born I had a vasectomy. At no cost. A few years ago I had triple bypass surgery. Again, at no cost to me. In all cases my treatment was rapid, performed by very skilled doctors, and my recoveries were quick and uneventful. Several years ago my wife had breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments. And next year we will be retiring comfortably because our savings weren’t drawn down by paying off medical debt. And, as is almost inevitable, we will both have to avail ourselves of the health care system in the coming years. But the one thing we won’t have to worry about is going bankrupt because of medical bills. Thank God that I live in Canada. Reapers Plague

Too much sugar, junk food and over-packaging isn't good for the country. When it comes to health and healthcare we are our own worst enemies. Being reactionary with universal healthcare is a stupid way to go about it. In an otherwise healthy society/ population, those insulin pens would go for $30.00 max- probably less. Why do liberals not want to face the real issues with our healthcare? ET

Do you even read messages replying to you? Or do you just grab something off your disk drive of crank literature and quote-mines of scientific papers? In fact, do you even read the messages you cut and paste? I like to follow down your links and see where you went off the rails. Take this, for example: "I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?" The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur's day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years. But forget that, I'd just like to know why you think it's so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that's good for the country? Or do you just think it's cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company? MatSpirit

Whereas on the hand, assuming Intelligent Design holds great promise for medical breakthroughs. For instance,

Fighting Cancer with Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – December 25, 2015 Excerpt: “In fighting antibiotic resistance, Darwin’s theory actually provides little guidance. Indeed, quite the opposite. As SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor has written here, “Darwinism tells us that … bacteria survive antibiotics that they’re not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That’s it.” To create drugs that outsmart evolving bacteria or cancer cells, biomedical researchers must use a process of intelligent design. They create drug cocktails that bank upon the fact that there are limits to how much living things can evolve on their own. Far from being evidence for Darwinian theory, antibiotic resistant bacteria point to what Michael Behe has called “the edge of evolution,” beyond which unguided Darwinian processes are powerless.” In simple terms, Darwinian evolution tends to work fine when only one mutation is needed to give an advantage. But when you need multiple mutations to gain an advantage, the process tends to get stuck. By throwing lots of antibiotic drugs at an organism, we force it to evolve lots of mutations — more than Darwinian evolution can produce — in order to survive. In this way, we can beat antibiotic-resistant microbes.,,, Dr. M. William Audeh at UCLA School of Medicine. He makes the same point with regard to fighting cancer.,,, He says we kill cancer cells by using many (“combinations of”) drugs — more than they can possibly evolve resistance to. When he says that we can “overcome the adaptive potential of the population,” he means there are limits to how much cancer cells can evolve. If we intelligently design combinations of drugs that would require more mutations than could possibly arise via Darwinian evolution, then we kill cancer cells before they evolve mutations to evade our therapy techniques. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/merry_christmas_1101861.html Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014 Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 — a medical triumph (over malaria). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/guide_of_the_pe089161.html

In fact, the multiple drug strategy that has been so effective in bringing HIV under control uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe has elucidated:

When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage. But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,, it “costs” a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,, This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients’ virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04

Thus again, Darwinian evolution has been useless, even harmful, to medical practice in particular and the development of medicine in general. Whereas assuming Intelligent Design holds great promise for both. In fact, assuming Intelligent Design lay at the founding of modern medicine. Hospitals themselves grew out of medieval Christianity with its emphasis of caring for the sick and the poor. As the following article states, "The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions."

Limited role of Darwinism in medicine – May 2, 2014 Excerpt: In eight well-written and thoroughly researched chapters, Ferngren takes the reader from ancient times to the Greco-Roman period, early Christianity, into the Middle Ages and the Islamic world, to the early modern period, and on into the 19th and 20th centuries. The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions. But the story told here is also about the eclipse of those traditions. While it is not a book on or about Darwinism, Ferngren states accurately that “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolutionary-psychology/limited-role-of-darwinism-in-medicine/

Supplemental notes:

smallpox: Edward Jenner was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine,,,, His father was the Reverend Stephen Jenner,,, "The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman." http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf polio and measles: John Enders, MD Death Bed: "On a September evening at their water front home in Connecticut, in 1985, Enders was reading T.S. Eliot aloud to his wife, Carolyn. He finished and went to bed, then quietly died. He was eighty-eight. At his memorial service his friend, the Bishop F.C. Laurence, said, "John Enders never lost his sense of wonder - wonder at the great mystery that exists and surrounds all of God's creation. This awareness is what gave him his wide vision and open mindedness, his continued interest in all things new, his ability to listen, his humility in the presence of this great mystery, and his never-ending search for the truth." His widow said that John briefly revealed his heart when he told her, concerning how creation ran, "There must be a mind behind it all." http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=117 Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer Excerpt: In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9,,, Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.,,, Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists “looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility” would do well to “turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals.”19 http://www.icr.org/article/ernst-chain-antibiotics-pioneer/ Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation - June 21, 2015 "Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation." [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.] https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/louis-pasteur-on-life-matter-and-spontaneous-generation/

bornagain77

Since the subject of medical care has come up, it might interest the Darwinian atheists to know that Darwinian evolution has been useless, even harmful, to medical practice in particular and the development of medicine in general. For instance, (ignoring the horror of eugenics), the false Darwinian assumption of vestigial organs has led to much medical malpractice in the past:

Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ LSU Ophthalmologist Commends a “Design Approach” in Appraising Supposedly Vestigial Organs – December 8, 2016 Excerpt: I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and I teach residents how to perform eye muscle surgery. The plica semilunaris is the curvilinear pinkish tissue in each person’s eye nasally. According to neo-Darwinian advocates, the tissue is a useless holdover from evolution, a vestigial tissue of the nictitating membrane in other mammals. Residents, who are generally a bright bunch, routinely quote this “truth” to me each year. Thus, residents tend to be careless with this tissue unless taught properly. When performing surgery for esotropia (“crossed eyes”), one must be very careful with the plica semilunaris. The tissue can easily be improperly attached too far temporally,,, I explain to the residents that the plica is needed to allow the eye to move outward or temporally, and sewing the plica in the wrong location can not only result in a dreadful red appearance to the eye, but the eye can be drawn inward.,, In the first few years of my practice, I saw an unfortunate Vietnamese gentleman, ,, He had a benign growth on the nasal portion of his eyes (a pterygium). The operation to remove this lesion is usually straightforward, but whoever performed his surgery neglected the plica and sewed the plica semilunaris too far temporally, resulting in very crossed eyes and double vision. Understandably upset, I had to perform eye muscle surgery (strabismus surgery) to restore his vision to normal. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/12/lsu_ophthalmolo103350.html

And as Dr. Michael Egnor explains, “Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine”, and "doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful."

Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html Against “Darwinian Medicine” – Michael Egnor – August 9, 2016 Excerpt: Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling “Darwinian Medicine” for years.,,, He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula,,, The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion, but for its irrelevance. Medical science is remarkably successful. Antibiotics, cybernetics, cancer chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, hip replacements, heart transplants, and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives — all without Darwin. Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances, it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/against_darwini103058.html

As to the development of medicine in general, The late Philip S. Skell states that "“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,, From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

Even Jerry Coyne admits that Darwinian evolution has been useless for the development of medicines, among other things:

Doctors and Evolution – May 19, 2015 Excerpt: Coincidentally, a correspondent today sends across my desk this from biologist Jerry Coyne, of Why Evolution Is True fame. Writing in Nature (“Selling Darwin”), Coyne has conceded: “[T]ruth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/how_is_it_possi096181.html

In fact, all of science can get along quite well without Darwinian speculations,

“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

Moreover, testing medicines on animals is largely a huge failure precisely because of the false evolutionary assumption of common ancestry:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community. AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,, Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005 Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003). http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

bornagain77

Like the Evolutionist and The Climate Changer, the Statist operates assuming the conclusion. In this case, The State is the Answer. Generally, there's no point in trying to have a rational discussion with any of them. Andrew asauber

If the USA is going to have universal health care and it increases our taxes, then the gov't would need to heavily regulate junk food, fast food and outlaw cigarettes. Most of our health problems are our own fault. So if we cannot control ourselves the gov't needs to do it for us. ET

Since the atheistic trolls on UD are seemingly SO concerned with improving healthcare for people with a one size fits all health plan, might I suggest that they start in their own backyard and that they themselves become Christian and that they actively encourage everyone else to become Christian? Christianity, and the acceptance thereof, is the greatest contributing factor in improving ones overall mental and physical well being In making this point clear, it is first important to note that the atheistic worldview, (besides denying that you exist as a real person),

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

,,,the atheistic worldview, (besides denying that you exist as a real person), also denies that there is any real meaning, beauty, and/or purpose for life.

Dawkins’ Non-Answer to the Meaning of Life - Rev. Mr. Matthew Newsome - Jan 23, 2017 Excerpt: For the benefit of those who like to skip ahead to the last page of a novel, Dawkins’ answer is that life has no meaning other than what you give it. It’s entirely subjective. https://testeverythingblog.com/dawkins-non-answer-to-the-meaning-of-life-e55ba6e99d79

Needless to say, a worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even a severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have to hold. Indeed, such an impoverished view of life goes a very long way towards explaining exactly why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,

'Believers are happier than atheists' - Jonathan Petre - 18 Mar 2008 People who believe in God are happier than agnostics or atheists, A report found that religious people were better able to cope with disappointments such as unemployment or divorce than non-believers. Moreover, they become even happier the more they pray and go to church, claims the study by Prof Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html

and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,

Of snakebites and suicide - February 18, 2014 RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/of-snakebites-and-suicide/

and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,

Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis Ying Chen, Tyler J VanderWeele - Sept. 10, 2018 Excerpt: Compared with no attendance, at least weekly attendance of religious services was associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, a number of character strengths, lower probabilities of marijuana use and early sexual initiation, and fewer lifetime sexual partners. Analyses of prayer or meditation yielded similar results. Although decisions about religion are not shaped principally by health, encouraging service attendance and private practices in adolescents who already hold religious beliefs may be meaningful avenues of development and support, possibly leading to better health and well-being. https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwy142/5094534

and also explains why Christians have less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,

“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.

Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/ Study: Religiously affiliated people live “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…” July 1, 2018 Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/ Can Religion Extend Your Life? - By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018 Excerpt: The researcher's regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%. https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

Thus if the atheistic trolls on UD were really as concerned for healthcare as they want to pretend to be, then the number one thing that they themselves can do right now to greatly improve their own, as well as others, health, (both mental and physical health), is to personally embrace and publicly promote Christianity. Something tells me that even their own health and well being is just a bridge too far for them to ever cross to personally embrace Christianity. Which is a sad, yet realistic, testament to their irrational hatred of God. i.e. They hate God so much that they end up basically hating the well being of their very own lives.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 15:25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'

bornagain77

4.26.19 / UPDATES Five Facts About Medicare For All As the House Committee On Rules prepares to hold a hearing next Tuesday, April 30, on “Medicare for all” legislation, here are five key facts to keep in mind regarding this proposal to completely eliminate the foundations of American health care – including the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicare and Medicaid – and start from scratch with a one-size-fits-all system: 1. The Costs Would Be Enormous, And Would Hit Middle Class Families With Unaffordable Tax Increases Let’s start with the bottom line: “There’s no possible way to finance [Medicare for all] without big middle class tax increases,” as Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior vice president, explained to The Washington Post. National polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that six in 10 Americans oppose Medicare for all once they learn it forces families to pay more in taxes. While the Medicare for all bill introduced in the U.S. House notably “doesn’t include a price tag or specific proposals for financing the new system,” independent analyses conducted by both the liberal-leaning Urban Institute and the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimate that even a less expansive Medicare for all program would cost taxpayers approximately $32 trillion over 10 years. NBC News reports that such a system “requires a massive new source of tax revenue.” The Washington Post reports that Medicare for all “would require tax hikes on middle class families,” a fact on which analysts agree. In fact, the Mercatus Center warns that “doubling allfederal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan,” while the centrist Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) found that enacting Medicare for all “would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest)” and “would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling allother taxes.” Speaking to The Washington Post on Medicare for all and other costly proposals, Jim Manley who as a senior member of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) staff played a key role in passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), offered this warning: “Democrats have to be careful here: If they’re going to pay for these programs, the math suggests middle-class taxpayers are going to be hit,” said Jim Manley, who served as an aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “And that’s not what Democrats have traditionally stood for.” Already, high costs and unaffordable tax hikes have doomed similar plans to implement single-payer health care on the state level: The New York Times editorial board acknowledged recently that “[i]n Vermont and Colorado, legislators dropped bids for a state-run single-payer system when it became clear that people would not support the tax increases needed to sustain such a program.” Roll Call reported that Vermont’s Democratic governor, who campaigned on a platform of single-payer health care, later admitted that the 11.5 percent payroll tax and 9.5 percent income tax that were proposed to finance the system were too much for taxpayers to accept: “The final bill was too much for the state to bear, he said. ‘The biggest problem was money,’ Shumlin said at Harvard. And he couldn’t promise lawmakers that they wouldn’t need to hike taxes again later to accommodate rising health care costs. ‘I couldn’t with a straight face turn to them and say, no, we’ve got this figured out,’ he said.” In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was blunt about the political and fiscal realities of implementing a single-payer health care system in the Empire State, saying “no sane person will pass it,” and “you’d double everybody’s taxes” to pay for it. 2. For Patients, The Uncertainties And Negative Impacts Would Be Significant Today, roughly 90 percent of Americans are covered – more than at any time in our nation’s history. U.S. Census data indicate that more than 217 million Americans benefit from private coverage – including 180 million who receive coverage through their employers and 10 million who shopped forcoverage through the marketplaces last year. More than 20 million seniors are enrolled in the popular Medicare Advantage program. Notably, public opinion research shows that a majority of Americans are satisfied with their coverage and care. “Perhaps the greatest political danger for Democrats is that Medicare for allwould disrupt coverage” for every one of those Americans, Bloomberg notes. Medicare for all would eliminate all of this, along with traditional Medicare and Medicaid, and force each and every American – young or old, sick or healthy – into a one-size-fits-all system run by Washington. Medicare for all would shift health care decisions away from patients and doctors and put them in the hands of Washington politicians and bureaucrats. For Americans, Medicare for all means more politics in their care and fewer choices when it comes to their coverage and treatments. And to make matters worse, serious questions are arising about how Medicare for all would impact children, as Bruce Lesley of First Focus on Children notes that it “would actually repeal Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and private health insurance coverage options for children and other populations and move them to an entirely new health care or single payer system.” Lesley aptly notes that “[w]hile some progressive health reform advocates and the media are criticizing those that do not sign up for [Medicare for all] as being vague or not bold, I would argue the opposite. In fact, the truth is that this approach is the one most lacking in the way of details.” 3. Americans Want Their Leaders To Focus On Improving & Building Upon What Works, Not Scrap It For Medicare For All A new national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that a majority of Americans want elected leaders to focus on “targeted actions” to improve and build upon what is working and fix what isn’t, and not on scrapping our existing health care system in favor of starting from scratch with Medicare for all. In fact, Kaiser finds that most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents “say they want Democrats in Congress to focus their efforts on improving and protecting the ACA,” while previous national polling by Kaiser reveals that Americans don’t support Medicare for all once they understand what it would mean for them. Earlier this year, Kaiser found that “net favorability [for Medicare for all] drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments. Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).” At the ballot box last fall, very few winning candidates in the House seats that delivered Democrats the majority endorsed Medicare for all proposals. In fact, not one of the 11 Democratic candidates who won in House districts where a majority of voters supported Republican presidential candidates in the past decade ran on a platform of support for Medicare for All, and 74 percent of allHouse Democrats who won seats in Republican-leaning districts did not support Medicare for All. Instead, the party netted 40 seats and took the House majority largely on a platform of protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions and other policies aimed at improving and building upon our current health care system. As one Democratic strategist put it to The New York Times: “Most of the freshmen who helped take back the House got elected on: ‘We’re going to protect your health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition,’ not ‘We’re going to take this whole system and throw it out the window.’” “[A] majority of those [Democratic Members] who flipped their seats from red to blue focused on strengthening the 2010 health care law and protecting coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions,” Roll Call reports, noting the significant “risks for any politician that proposes dramatic change and uncertainty in a system that is central to Americans’ well-being.” 4. Key Democratic Leaders Are Expressing Serious Concerns About Medicare For All Given these facts, it is no surprise that a growing chorus of leading Democrats is sounding alarm bells on the high costs and political risks associated with Medicare for all. As the Washington Post notes, these Democratic leaders are worried by such proposals, which “require middle class tax hikes that will prove hurtful for economic growth and the party’s political fortunes.” For example: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently exclaimed to Rolling Stone: “And by the way, how’s it gonna be paid for?” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairwoman Rep. Cheri Bustos said to The Hill that “the $33 trillion price tag for Medicare for all is a little scary,” and later doubled down on those comments in an interview with CNN. The Washington Examiner notes that “Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, also has drawn attention to the cost.” President Barack Obama “warned a group of freshman House Democrats … about the costs associated with some liberal ideas popular in their ranks, encouraging members to look at price tags” in what was widely seen as “a cautionary note about Medicare-for-all,” The Washington Post reports. As the House Medicare for all bill was rolled out, “[k]ey players whose support would be vital to the success of Jayapal’s bill were muted, while a group of moderate House Democrats called for instead improving the Affordable Care Act and expanding existing private channels of health coverage,” The Washington Post reported. The Hill reports that “[c]entrist Democrats who helped their party win back the House majority with victories in key swing districts last fall are sounding the alarm that the liberal push for ‘Medicare for all’ could haunt them as they try to defend their seats and keep control of the House.” This helps explain why, as The Washington Post reports, even as hearings are expected in the House Rules and Budget Committees, which do not traditionally have jurisdiction over health care legislation, “the major [House] health committees are staying away from the legislation and leadership hasn’t said they will hold a vote on it.” 5. With 90 Percent Of Americans Now Covered And Most Satisfied With Their Care, We Have More Affordable, Less Disruptive Ways To Expand Access The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future believes that every American deserves access to affordable, quality health care. And while there has been significant made progress towards this goal, there is still more that can and should be done to expand access and control costs. It is important to note that our leaders already have powerful tools available to help them achieve this. For instance: One important step would be to expand Medicaid in the remaining states that have not yet expanded the program, which would increase access to millions of Americans. Another would be to expand available federal subsidies so that Americans of all income levels can choose market-based coverage that fits their needs. Additionally, we can make important progress stabilizing premiums to control health-care costs by using proven tools such as reinsurance. These are just some of the steps our elected leaders can take to improve and build upon what is working today, rather than scrapping our entire health-care system to start over with a one-size-fits-allgovernment-run program that would make families pay more through higher taxes, eliminate patients’ choices and control, and push Americans, a majority of whom are satisfied with their coverage, off their current plans. Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward. https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/

bornagain77

Bornagain77@ 74

Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe

Really? In the US ...

A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.

In the UK, nobody - but nobody - is forced into bankruptcy due to unforeseen medical expenses. The shortage of resources in the UK's National Health Service is due to chronic underfunding by governments from both left and right.

Though funding for the Department of Health and Social Care continues to grow, the rate of growth slowed during the period of austerity that followed the 2008 economic crash. Budgets rose by 1.5 per cent each year on average in the 10 years between 2009/10 to 2018/19, compared to the 3.7 per cent average rises since the NHS was established.[My emphasis]

Yes, the quality of healthcare in the US is excellent for those that can afford it. Unfortunately, one of the reasons for the excellence of that care is that upwards of 40 million people in the richest country in the world are priced right out of the system. And even for patients who can afford it, patients still get screwed over by an utterly outrageous lack of transparency over pricing:

"In orthopedic surgery, we're never told how much things cost. We never see the cost displayed anywhere, and even if you were interested, there's no great way to find it," says Dr. Kanu Okike, lead author of the Health Affairs study and an orthopedic surgeon at Kaiser Permanente Moanalua Medical Center in Honolulu (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente). Unlike pretty much every other consumer industry, health care costs aren't transparent, even for the surgeons performing the operations. The study didn't look at what patients know about costs. Hospital systems and purchasing groups negotiate deals with device makers and agree not to divulge the details. "Medical device manufacturers strive to keep their prices confidential so that they can sell the same implant at a different price to different health care institutions," the study authors write.

Finally, as a Christian, do you think Jesus would approve of a private healthcare system such as that in the US which excludes the poorest and most vulnerable? Did Jesus charge anything for the treatments He provided? Seversky

BA77: Your article complains that Canadians wait too long to get some medical procedures. Here's what AARP says about that: “In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours. Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.” https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html You want shorter wait times? Then spend the money. Here's some interesting charts on how much the top nations spend on health care at https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends In 2017, the United States's non-system spent $10,244 per person on health care. Canada spent $4826. England was at the bottom, spending only $4276. Your article describes the result: “Today, British hospitals are so overcrowded that doctors regularly treat patients in hallways. The agency recently canceled tens of thousands of surgeries, including urgent cancer procedures, because of severe resource shortages. And this winter, nearly 17,000 patients waited in the backs of their ambulances — many for an hour or more — before hospital staff could clear space for them in the emergency room. “ It's not that the US isn't paying for good health care, we're just not getting it. P.S. I'm concentrating on dollars and cents here because I realize asking, “What Would Jesus Do?”, might be a little embarrassing under these circumstances. MatSpirit

RP@75, I am Canadian and our health care system isn’t as ideal as you imply. Our emergency treatments and quality of the doctors and nurses is second to none. But wait times for non-emergency procedures and tests can be extensive. For example, you can wait up to a year for hip replacement surgery. This being said, the amount of misinformation about our system spewed in the US is huge. We are not told what doctors we can see. We can get second opinions. People are not dying in the emergency rooms. In short, you would be hard pressed to find a Canadian who would exchange the Canadian system for the US one. Ed George

BA77

Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe.

Funny how Canada still has lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, lower mortality rates due to heart and stroke, lower rates of medical errors, lower rate of bankruptcy due to medical expenses, much lower per capita spent on medical costs. Reapers Plague

Canadians Are One In A Million -- While Waiting For Medical Treatment,,, Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record. Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank. Lengthy treatment delays are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, which ration care to keep costs down. Yet more and more Democratic leaders are pushing for a single-payer system -- and more and more voters are clamoring for one.... By his own admission, Sen. Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill is modeled on Canada's healthcare system. On a fact-finding trip to Canada last fall, Sanders praised the country for "guaranteeing health care to all people," noting that "there is so much to be learned" from the Canadian system. The only thing Canadian patients are "guaranteed" is a spot on a waitlist. As the Fraser report notes, in 2017, more than 173,000 patients waited for an ophthalmology procedure. Another 91,000 lined up for some form of general surgery, while more than 40,000 waited for a urology procedure. All told, nearly 3% of Canada's population was waiting for some kind of medical care at the end of last year. Those delays were excruciatingly long. After receiving a referral from a general practitioner, the typical patient waited more than 21 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. That was the longest average waiting period on record -- and more than double the median wait in 1993. Rural patients faced even longer delays. For instance, the average Canadian in need of orthopedic surgery waited almost 24 weeks for treatment -- but the typical patient in rural Nova Scotia waited nearly 39 weeks for the same procedure. One Ontario woman, Judy Congdon, learned that she needed a hip replacement in 2016, according to the Toronto Sun. Doctors initially scheduled the procedure for September 2017 -- almost a year later. The surgery never happened on schedule. The hospital ran over budget, forcing physicians to postpone the operation for another year. In the United States, suffering for a year or more before receiving a joint replacement is unheard of. In Canada, it's normal. Canadians lose a lot of money waiting for their "free" socialized medicine. On average, patients forfeit over $1,800 in lost wages. And that's only counting the working hours they miss due to pain and immobility. The Fraser Institute researchers also calculated the value of all the waking hours that patients lost because they couldn't fully function. The toll was staggering -- almost $5,600 per patient, totaling $5.8 billion nationally. And those calculations ignore the value of uncompensated care provided by family members, who often take time off work or quit their jobs to help ill loved ones. Canada isn't an anomaly. Every nation that offers government-funded, universal coverage features long wait times. When the government makes health care "free," consumers' demand for medical services surges. Patients have no incentive to limit their doctor visits or choose more cost-efficient providers. To prevent expenses from ballooning, the government sets strict budget caps that only enable hospitals to hire a limited number of staff and purchase a meager amount of equipment. Demand inevitably outstrips supply. Shortages result. Just look at the United Kingdom's government enterprise, the National Health Service, which turns 70 this July. Today, British hospitals are so overcrowded that doctors regularly treat patients in hallways. The agency recently canceled tens of thousands of surgeries, including urgent cancer procedures, because of severe resource shortages. And this winter, nearly 17,000 patients waited in the backs of their ambulances -- many for an hour or more -- before hospital staff could clear space for them in the emergency room. Most Americans would look at these conditions in horror. Yet Sen. Sanders and his fellow travelers continue to treat the healthcare systems in Canada and the UK as paragons to which America should aspire. Sen. Sanders's "Medicare for All" proposal would effectively ban private insurance and force all Americans into a single, government-funded healthcare plan. According to Sen. Sanders, this new insurance scheme would cover everything from regular check-ups to prescription drugs and specialty care, no referral needed -- all at no charge to patients. Americans shouldn't fall for these rosy promises. As Canadians know all too well, when the government foots the bill for healthcare, patients are the ones who pay the biggest price. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#7445b9633e7d

Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe. bornagain77

BA77, please name a single industrialized nation that doesn't have Medicare for all. I'll start you off: The United States of America. How's it feel to be running dead last? MatSpirit

BA77

Aside from the fact that medicare for all would greatly diminish the quality of health care in this country, and besides bankrupting the country,

Really? What is your evidence? Canada has universal health care. Their infant mortality is lower. Their life expectancy is higher. Nobody loses their homes due to hospital bills. US debt to GDP is 76.4% as compared to 34% for Canada. And here is a little factoid that I am sure will drive you crazy, Canadians don’t have to pay for abortions or sex reassignment surgery. Reapers Plague

Aside from the fact that medicare for all would greatly diminish the quality of health care in this country, and besides bankrupting the country, I find it rather ironic that a democrat, whose party supported slavery, opposed civil rights, and currently supports unrestricted abortion, would have the audacity to pretend that Democrats are the more compassionate party. The fact of the matter is that Democrats use fake compassion to try to further their socialistic goals. Goals which, if actually realized, would greatly increase the misery index of the entire country. And that certainly is NOT being compassionate.

Socialism Fails Every Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDBTHxYZ7Q Socialism Fails Every Time - 2019 The best outcome is a reversion to capitalism. The worst? Hundreds of millions dead. https://www.wsj.com/articles/socialism-fails-every-time-11554851786 Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist BY REV. BEN JOHNSON • JANUARY 17, 2019 https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denmark-american-leftists-were-not-socialist

bornagain77

“Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” Sounds like a Republican explaining why they oppose Medicare for all. MatSpirit

“What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?” Sev, I'm evolved. There's is no "purpose." You evidently have some learning to do. Andrew asauber

"What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?" Sev, Why are you asking me this question? There's nothing inherently wrong with what I posted. I don't understand what your objection could be. Andrew asauber

Reapers Plague, since it would defeat his atheistic worldview, never honestly admitted that he has no objective moral basis in which to sit in moral judgement of Almighty God Himself. (which I pointed out to him in post 43.

BA77: it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? , The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible (and moral) universe and therefore a theistic one. https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/

But anyways, supposing that Reapers Plague honestly admitted that Theism must necessarily be true in order to provide himself a coherent moral basis, would his criticism of Christianity, which he made in post 42, then be relevant and/or valid? i.e.

R.P.: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuals other than ‘the old laws stand’. And the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws?"

It is very interesting to note that the religious leaders of Jesus' day tried to trap Jesus with the exact same type of argument that R.P. is currently trying to use, i.e. "the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws?":

John 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Might I also point out that Jesus himself paid penalty of death on her behalf?

Woman Caught in Adultery - clip from "The Passion" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ykt6pyLJ4 Understanding Why Jesus Wrote in the Sand https://youtu.be/tmWrS86zs4Y?t=315

bornagain77

Reaper- Clearly you are just an angry, hateful and willfully ignorant troll. Good luck with that. But I am glad I could help your reprehensible hatred get its much needed oxygen. ET

ET

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues and an inability to think

Clearly you would be welcome amongst the bigoted homophobes of the Westboro Baptist church. My only regret is that it took me this long to realize that interacting with you only gave much needed oxygen to a reprehensible hatred. Reapers Plague

Reaper:

So, killing homosexuals is a mercy killing?

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues, along with an inability to think. ET

ET

First off with God the death is not a final ending. Perhaps it, the order to kill, was just a way to physically reset the soul, which was placed in a defective body. So with that in mind, the context would be in the time it was written to rid your population of sexual deviants intent on committing perverse, immoral and unnatural acts. There isn’t any “being fruitful and multiplying” with same sex partners. So they weren’t even fulfilling that purpose so they need a reset.

So, killing homosexuals is a mercy killing? You are one sick f&$@. Reapers Plague

Ed George:

Says those who have no rational response.

Says those who are so dense they are a walking black hole. ET

Reapers:

With regard to your last statement, my only response is that I would think that a truly benevolent supreme being would prefer that we use our judgement rather than have to impose orders.

And that is how it was until we proved that our judgement left a lot to be desired. ET

Reapers:

Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death.

First off with God the death is not a final ending. Perhaps it, the order to kill, was just a way to physically reset the soul, which was placed in a defective body. So with that in mind, the context would be in the time it was written to rid your population of sexual deviants intent on committing perverse, immoral and unnatural acts. There isn't any "being fruitful and multiplying" with same sex partners. So they weren't even fulfilling that purpose so they need a reset. If same-sex is the OK then why not same-family? Why an age limit? Why a species limit? How could they stop it back then? I doubt societies would have flourished if it was just a free-for-all. All that said, if someone knew the consequences, did it and got caught, then that is on them. They get a double Darwin award because they weren't going to reproduce anyway. ET

Seversky At risk of sounding like an idiot, I say this I believe that there is an objective moral reality in our universe based off of cause and effect, it is built into our very physics, so much so that even bacterial life will work together to survive If a person living on an island by themselves didn’t have to kill anybody, killing would still be wrong, it is just that there are no people around him to kill. It is understandable that killing people is now a irrelevant and by that the moral code would be as well, but this is only because there’s no one around, there’s no cause, there no effect, particularly when it involves other people Now that’s if I’m understanding you correctly Now if the person by themselves on the island decided to start killing everything because he could then eventually he would end up dead as he would either starve to death or eventually be killed by one of the things that he was just killing for the sake of it It is inherently wrong to needlessly destroy, and eventually there will be ramifications for those actions Something being objective can still be adaptive, moral objective law can still be adaptive based on the situation We have to exercise our judgment to determine that Subjectivism and objectivism when it comes to morality play off of one another they both have to exist it’s really the only way I can work. It’s why I believe in free will and that’s why I also believe in determinism you honestly can’t have one without the other AaronS1978

AronS1978

Personally and I think we both would agree on this is that supreme being would expect both from us the ability to follow orders but the exercise judgment

First, I would like to thank you for engaging in a discussion with someone you disagree with without making it personal. That, unfortunately, is a rare trait on the blogosphere. With regard to your last statement, my only response is that I would think that a truly benevolent supreme being would prefer that we use our judgement rather than have to impose orders. Reapers Plague

ET

It all depends on the context.

Says those who have no rational response. Ed George

This is where we disagree. If there is an almighty supreme being responsible for our existence, then he gave us free will and the ability to think and reason. If he didn’t want us to question things, he wouldn’t have given us these abilities. A good analogy would be the relationship between us and our children. We do everything possible to instill our values in them but we would be disappointed if they didn’t grow up to think for themselves and, on occasion, question our teachings. I’m actually kind of happy with this response because I was thinking of this when I was writing my first post And it led me to a question of whether or not that almighty supreme being would see whether or not it subjects would follow orders regardless or make the right decision Personally and I think we both would agree on this is that supreme being would expect both from us the ability to follow orders but the exercise judgment AaronS1978

RP

Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death.

Obviously there is no sane person who could provide a context under which this would be justified. But I think that it can be argued that Jesus’ “let he is without sin cast the first stone” admonition can be construed as extending to most other sins. Ed George

ET

It all depends on the context.

Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death. This should be interesting. Reapers Plague

AaronS1978@ 35

Subjectivism and trying to use objective science to support it has lead to the nonsense that is going on in universities right now about identity and transgenderism

To me, as a self-described Millian libertarian, censorship and repression are equally abhorrent whether coming from the left or right of the political spectrum and some of what is happening in the universities is certainly troubling.

By saying that something isn’t objectively wrong is open the door for people to define whatever they want to be objectively wrong or objectively right because in the end it’s all subjective and I would say that it’s really not working out too well

That is certainly the standard objection to subjectivism. My answer is that, functionally, moral codes regulate the way people behave towards one another in society. If you lived alone on a desert island prohibitions against murder or theft of property would be irrelevant since there would be no one to kill and you would effectively own all that was there. Most people, however, would prefer not to be killed and to have their personal property respected, for example. Both empathy for the sufferings of others and simple practicality lead to a position where, in order to have one's own needs and interests respected, one agrees to respect those of others. Intersubjective agreement is a sufficient basis for morality. Nothing is gained by designating morality as objective except, perhaps, to claim unwarranted authority for one's preferred morality. I note that Christians tend to believe that Christian morality is objective but not that of Islam or Hinduism or native American beliefs, for example. Seversky

AronS1978

In Leviticus it is the act that rewards you the punishment

I think we all understand that.

Being homosexual in in itself does not reward you the punishment nor did Jesus speak of it

No, but the act does. And there is nowhere in the Bible, old or New Testament, that the punishment is stayed. The closest is Jesus’ reaction to the adulteress when people wanted to stone her. But that was specific to adultery. Maybe he intended to extend this to all transgressions, but he did not make this clear.

Christians do not hate homosexuals and again to emphasize reapers point saying one group that hates homosexuals and calls itself Christians should not be generalized for all the other groups

I agree. I have many close friends who are Christian and they would never think of acting like this. In fact, many have even attended SSM services and honestly wished the couples well.

It is understood that Darwinism leads to flawed assumptions about existence, that does not however entail that everybody falls under the same category

I would disagree with the “flawed assumptions” but I agree that jumping to the conclusion that all Darwinists, atheist, materialist, or subjectivist can be categorized as being the same is as flawed as assuming that all who consider themselves Christians can be categorized as all having the same views.

I do however agree with that if an Almighty supreme being judges something to be bad that we really don’t have much that we can say about it, for is was that being that created all the rules of reality including our judgments

This is where we disagree. If there is an almighty supreme being responsible for our existence, then he gave us free will and the ability to think and reason. If he didn’t want us to question things, he wouldn’t have given us these abilities. A good analogy would be the relationship between us and our children. We do everything possible to instill our values in them but we would be disappointed if they didn’t grow up to think for themselves and, on occasion, question our teachings. Reapers Plague

R. P. asks

Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion?

I am not 'suggesting' anything. I am clearly telling you as directly as I can that it is impossible for you, as a Darwinian atheist, to pass a meaningful moral judgement on anything. Without God there simply is no objective morality, PERIOD! i.e. morality is non existent, PERIOD! You must, at least, embrace some form of mono-Theism in order to have a coherent moral basis in order to try to argue against Christianity in the first place. Good luck finding one. IMHO, the other mono-theistic faiths of the world fall way short of Christianity as to being a coherent worldview. bornagain77

Reaper:

Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion?

It all depends on the context. But we all know that context isn't important to you. ET

Asauber@ 34

I can dumb it down even further… There’s nothing inherently wrong with what the poster said. There’s nothing inherently wrong with blaming Darwinists for what the poster said. […]

By George, he's got it! What purpose does "inherently" serve in this context? Seversky

Reaper:

Because killing someone is what you do if you love them.

You definitely don't have to hate someone in order to kill them. The best a Westboro Baptist church parishioner can say based on the Bible is: "God detests same-sex sex" ET

John_a_designer@ 33

Your position is self-refuting. Epistemologically or morally I am not obligated to accept your subjective opinions. So your argument fails on both epistemological and moral grounds. Moral arguments without moral obligation are pointless.

Do you regard moral obligation as mandatory or voluntary? If you regard it as mandatory, in other words imposed by force without regard to your views or any need for justification then moral argument is indeed pointless. We would have no free will in the matter. If you hold, as I do, that any moral obligation worth a damn is that which is voluntarily acknowledged by those who agree to be bound by it then there is a great deal to argue about. Seversky

Asauber@ 32

You could think anything. You could think one thing one minute and the opposite the next. That’s the point. It’s all the same, according to your position. The only question is why you cling to this stupidity?

Yes, within the limits of our knowledge and imagination, we can think anything if we choose and that capacity is the basis of some of our greatest works of art, literature and music. I would like, therefore, to live as long as I can in order to enjoy the one life I appear to have in this physical universe. However, if I imagine that I can jump off a tall building and fly like a bird by wildly flapping my arms or I can pet a hungry tiger as if it were a domestic cat there is good reason to think that is unlikely to happen. If this universe exists then not all thoughts have the same consequences. Seversky

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior If this is at all helpful for those on this discussion There’s plenty more, but it is too much for me to put in this post The readers digest version is the act is condemned and the act is condemned for multiple reasons one being natural law In Leviticus it is the act that rewards you the punishment Being homosexual in in itself does not reward you the punishment nor did Jesus speak of it Christians do not hate homosexuals and again to emphasize reapers point saying one group that hates homosexuals and calls itself Christians should not be generalized for all the other groups It is understood that Darwinism leads to flawed assumptions about existence, that does not however entail that everybody falls under the same category I do however agree with that if an Almighty supreme being judges something to be bad that we really don’t have much that we can say about it, for is was that being that created all the rules of reality including our judgments But that’s how I see about it AaronS1978

BA77

Not to be nitpicky with inconsistent argumentation but perhaps, before you try to sit in moral judgement of almighty God Himself, it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? ,

Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion? Sorry, but any being who would do that, whether human, dog or the almighty God, is one sick being and one that I refuse to take seriously. Of course, that is just my opinion. If you choose to worship such a being, that is your choice. But just remember, it is a conscious choice. Reapers Plague

Not to be nitpicky with inconsistent argumentation but perhaps, before you try to sit in moral judgement of almighty God Himself, it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? ,

The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible (and moral) universe and therefore a theistic one. https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/

bornagain77

BA77

God more than did his part in demonstrating His great love for us.

By instructing us to kill homosexuals? Or women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night (with no comment about the husband’s virginity?). Sorry. How do you or anyone justify these reprehensible instructions? Jesus never said anything about homosexuals other than ‘the old laws stand’. And the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws? Reapers Plague

"Because killing someone is what you do if you love them." Verses:

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God more than did His part in demonstrating His great love for us. What the sinner who lost all control of his destructive sin, (and has been redeemed by Christ), readily understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is really a sinner (if he even admits that there is even such a thing as sin), but who is under the delusion that he is somehow controlling his sin, does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome temptation, sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf, (since we were and are completely incapable of doing so), so that we may be set free from our sin, even from death, and reunited with Him forever and ever in heaven. Love is the only proper response on our part.

The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html

bornagain77

ET

See, not one word about hating “fags”. Thank you.

Because killing someone is what you do if you love them. Reapers Plague

See, not one word about hating "fags". Thank you. ET

ET

Show us the same for God and “fags”.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Reapers Plague

seversky:

The Westboro Baptist Church seem to be convinced they are truly Christian and can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position.

I doubt that.

And, once again, the theory of evolution describes “survival of the fittest” as a process observed in nature.

Except it is only a process dreamed of by Darwin and his followers.

It does not prescribe it as a guiding principle for human societies.

Umm, societies are part of nature. And according to you and yours they were produced by nature.

In fact, it makes no moral recommendations at all, something of which the author of those reprehensible sentiments on the poster was apparently unaware, which makes one wonder how much of a “Darwinist” he or she actually is.

According to the literature he is as much a Darwinist as Darwin himself:

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

ET

Reaper:

By that argument, a sign held by a Westboro Baptist church parishioner that says “GOD HATES FAGS” stems from what God said.

Except it doesn't. What Darwin said:

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

The sign:

“Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”

Show us the same for God and "fags". ET

Subjectivism and trying to use objective science to support it has lead to the nonsense that is going on in universities right now about identity and transgenderism By saying that something isn’t objectively wrong is open the door for people to define whatever they want to be objectively wrong or objectively right because in the end it’s all subjective and I would say that it’s really not working out too well AaronS1978

I can dumb it down even further... There's nothing inherently wrong with what the poster said. There's nothing inherently wrong with blaming Darwinists for what the poster said. There's nothing inherently wrong with calling people names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting mad about people calling each other names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting glad when other people call each other names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with genocide. There's nothing inherently wrong with thousands of abortions a day. There's nothing inherently wrong with commenting on the internet that aborting a thousand children in a day is inherently wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with people saying something is inherently wrong or not saying something is inherently wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong, period. There's nothing inherently wrong with me then concluding I'm inherently right. Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom now. Andrew asauber

Seversky, Your position is self-refuting. Epistemologically or morally I am not obligated to accept your subjective opinions. So your argument fails on both epistemological and moral grounds. Moral arguments without moral obligation are pointless. john_a_designer

"What matters is what we think" Sev, You could think anything. You could think one thing one minute and the opposite the next. That's the point. It's all the same, according to your position. The only question is why you cling to this stupidity? Andrew asauber

Bornagain77@ 25

That is to say, while the Westboro Baptist church was/is acting contrary to the morality inherent within Christianity, (and everybody, including atheists, seems to intuitively knows that they are acting contrary to the morality of Christ), the person who posted the sign that said “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” was acting perfectly consistently within the amorality inherent within Darwinism. Darwinian atheists simply have no moral basis within their materialistic worldview to condemn the act as being ‘reprehensible’.

The Westboro Baptist Church seem to be convinced they are truly Christian and can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. They would probably regard you as some sort of insufficiently devout,"snowflake" Christian. How do we decide between you? And, once again, the theory of evolution describes "survival of the fittest" as a process observed in nature. It does not prescribe it as a guiding principle for human societies. In fact, it makes no moral recommendations at all, something of which the author of those reprehensible sentiments on the poster was apparently unaware, which makes one wonder how much of a "Darwinist" he or she actually is. Seversky

John_a_designer@ 27

Maybe the posters are not really Darwinists. If so is there anything inherently wrong with what they posted? Not from a moral subjectivist POV. There is nothing inherently wrong or reprehensible from a subjectivist POV. Which is why I find subjectivism to be reprehensible.

So what if there is nothing "inherently wrong" with what the poster said? What matters is what we think. I, as one of those subjectivists, think it is reprehensible and I suspect that the vast majority of other subjectivists would agree. So why would we need validation from some third-party, extraterrestrial moral umpire? Aren't you able to make that judgment for yourself? Seversky

ET

The “reprehensible” signs stem from what Darwin said. Period. End of story.

By that argument, a sign held by a Westboro Baptist church parishioner that says "GOD HATES FAGS" stems from what God said. Reapers Plague

AaronS1978:

He simply saying that the behavior was entirely inappropriate but blaming Darwinists or atheist is just as bad as blaming Christians for stupid things posted by the Westborough church.

The "reprehensible" signs stem from what Darwin said. Period. End of story. ET

Maybe the posters are not really Darwinists. If so is there anything inherently wrong with what they posted? Not from a moral subjectivist POV. There is nothing inherently wrong or reprehensible from a subjectivist POV. Which is why I find subjectivism to be reprehensible. john_a_designer

AronS1977@23, Thank you. Reapers Plague

Well AaronS1978, while I agree with the overall sentiment that "blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion", it is also important to note that Darwinists have to 'borrow' morality from Christianity in order to condemn the act as being reprehensible in the first place. That is to say, while the Westboro Baptist church was/is acting contrary to the morality inherent within Christianity, (and everybody, including atheists, seems to intuitively knows that they are acting contrary to the morality of Christ), the person who posted the sign that said “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” was acting perfectly consistently within the amorality inherent within Darwinism. Darwinian atheists simply have no moral basis within their materialistic worldview to condemn the act as being 'reprehensible'. As Sedgwick told Darwin

My dear Darwin,,, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly".,,, - Adam Sedgwick professor of geology at Cambridge University - 1859 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

bornagain77

UGG my phone’s acting funky Here’s a better statement There’s no reason to attack him on this and it’s looking like this thread is devolving quickly into a fight for nothing I don’t agree with some of the reaper’s responses either, But this kind of escalated pretty quickly for an no reason AaronS1978

Reapers Plague November 19, 2019 at 3:26 pm As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion. I kind of want to put aN end to this, The “up here’s the reason why we were attacking RP? He simply saying that the behavior was entirely inappropriate but blaming Darwinists or atheist is just as bad as blaming Christians for stupid things posted by the Westborough church This is a very true statement and there’s no reason to attack him on this or to get nasty with him what did I miss something AaronS1978

So Darwin's a court jester? Darwin is the one you are not reading/ listening to. ET

ET

Reaper admits to willful ignorance.

If willful ignorance means not listening to the court jester, I plead guilty. Reapers Plague

Reaper admits to willful ignorance. Typical, but still pathetic. ET

BA77

R.P. reading comprehension not your strong suit eh?

Reading comprehension implies that I actually read all of your comments. I, like most people, can’t be bothered reading past your first couple sentences. Maybe if those first couple sentences said anything interesting... Reapers Plague

bornagain77- Reaper is just another creeper and quote-mining troll. It has no intention to read what Darwin said and make the obvious connections. But please, keep exposing it as a reprehensible troll. ET

Reapers:

Were you bullied as a child or are you just naturally a sociopath?

And that is why you are a quote-mining coward and reprehensible fool? Really? But your projection is duly noted.

You, obviously, are not worth talking to.

Well not if you are just going to be a quote-mining coward who doesn't have anything to say.

I assume this happens to you often.

As often as there are quote-mining cowards polluting this blog, anyway. ET

R.P. reading comprehension not your strong suit eh? Please note the period after the "red in tooth and claw, theory." statement.

A period is a small dot-shaped punctuation mark that is used at the end of any sentence that is intended to make a statement. As with other punctuation marks that end sentences, the period should be placed directly behind the last letter of the last word of the sentence.

Then note the blockquoted quote of Charles Darwin after the "As Darwin himself stated" statement that I made (without a period)

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Do you find "let the strongest live and the weakest die” to be morally reprehensible? Especially in regards to humans, i.e. eugenics?

Cousins: Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics Nicholas W. Gillham First published: 24 August 2009 Abstract Sir Francis Galton, scientist, African Explorer and statistician, was a key figure in statistical history. He was the man who devised the statistical concepts of regression and correlation. He was also Charles Darwin's cousin. And, inspired by his reading of Darwin, he was the founder of eugenics: the “science” of improving the human race through selective breeding. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2009.00379.x

bornagain77

ET

It makes me glad that a known reprehensible, quote-mining coward thinks so.

Were you bullied as a child or are you just naturally a sociopath? You, obviously, are not worth talking to. I assume this happens to you often. Reapers Plague

Reapers:

Whereas you are reprehensible in both a Darwinian world and a designed world.

It makes me glad that a known reprehensible, quote-mining coward thinks so.

Except that Darwin wasn’t the one who coined “survival of the fittest” or “red in tooth and claw”.

So what? He definitely adopted both of them in an attempt to further his narrative. ET

BA77

Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type, (for instance calling the sign that said “Let the baby die” reprehensible), is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin himself stated

; That’s nice. Except that Darwin wasn’t the one who coined “survival of the fittest” or “red in tooth and claw”. When someone starts a thousand word tome with two easily proven falsehoods, it saves me the effort to read the rest. Thank you for your consideration. Reapers Plague

Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria, instead of eating us, are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html

Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”

The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers

None of this pervasive altruistic behavior within bacteria makes any sense on Darwinian evolution and in fact directly contradicts the 'predictions' inherent in 'survival of the fittest' thinking. Again, if Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of basically being a religion for atheists, this should count as yet another powerful falsification of their theory: Verse:

Matthew 25 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, 36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’ 40 And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’

bornagain77

R.P.

"As reprehensible as this is"

ET

It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.

To wit:

"If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 67

Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type, (for instance calling the sign that said "Let the baby die" reprehensible), is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin himself stated;

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

Moreover, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too. Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747

Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory). In fact on top of genes being in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive. To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound and willful ignorance (most likely both).

One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

In fact Darwin stated that “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

Thus, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small single celled organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

bornagain77

ET

It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.

Whereas you are reprehensible in both a Darwinian world and a designed world. I guess that means that you win. Reapers Plague

As reprehensible as this is,...

It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world. ET

Correct reapers plague AaronS1978

As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion. Reapers Plague

"Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." At the urging of hard Darwinian reasoning their sympathy was checked to the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. aarceng

Seversky tells himself another evidence-free Darwinian 'just-so story' because even he can't handle the barbarity inherent within his own Darwinian worldview:

“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

At least Dawkins had enough integrity to honesty admit that the Darwinian worldview entails, "at bottom,,,, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

That Atheism entails a very low view humanity, one does not have to go very far to find examples. In 1995 Stephen Hawking stated that “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” - Stephen Hawking - 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,

In 2002 John Gray, an English political philosopher, stated that “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.”

“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” John Gray - Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - page 33 - 2002 https://books.google.com/books?id=0GGyCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33

Voltaire claimed that men were , "insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.”

You Chemical Scum, You - Prof. Raymond Tallis - 2012 Excerpt: Significant Insignificances Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” ,,, Voltaire did not consider himself merely an insect, any more than Gray considers slime mould his peer, or Hawking regards Hawking as a quantum of chemical scum. https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You

As should be glaringly obvious by now, the atheist's worldview is about as hopeless and depressing of a worldview as a person can possibly have. Why an atheist would willingly choose the hopeless nihilism of his Darwinian worldview over Christianity I have no idea. Especially since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a science in the first place:

Nov. 2019 - Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/jon-harvey-hump-of-the-camel-weighs-in-on-the-late-phillip-johnson/#comment-688180

And especially since there is now abundant scientific evidence, (from both quantum mechanics and general relativity, which are, by far, our two most powerful theories in science), that human life is not nearly as insignificant in this universe as the atheist has falsely imagined it to be:

Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/we-are-invited-to-consider-a-simpler-perspective-on-the-laws-of-physics/#comment-680427 Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video (review of the scientific evidence starts at the 13:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/aqUxBSbFhog?t=782

Quote, Verse and Video:

“If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. And He intentionally created you. So your life does have objective meaning, value and purpose. That means you can live a life that is both happy and consistent.” Is There Meaning to Life? - Dr Craig videos (animated video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE 1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.” Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

bornagain77

seversky:

Whoever posted that sign is contemptible and quite possibly a troll.

So trolls post facts? Interesting... ET

That sort of commentary happens when you strip the power from someone and you make everything seem meaningless The baby has no meaning just let it die if you do so than the rare disease that it has will also die with it That’s what fills the vacuum when humans become nothing more than to meet robots powered Thermal chemical reactions, And programmed by genes Seversky’s Doesn’t do much to help that either, It reduces sympathy As an incidental instinct acquired as part of social and stings through natural selection That affectively rendering sympathy meaningless like everything else Now I would like also point out in the quote HOW Absolutely certain he is about the origin of sympathy and what became of it. There’s absolutely no way at that time he could’ve known that, it was a complete conjecture, a straight story. As with most Darwinian storytelling is just a task of connecting the dots from survival to the end result, you don’t need science for that AaronS1978

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. " Only a Darwinist Cult Zealot like Sev would present such gobbledygook. What utter flipping nonsense. Andrew asauber

Whoever posted that sign is contemptible and quite possibly a troll. It certainly doesn't reflect what Darwin thought.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

-- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871) Seversky