Another creationist idiot (2008-07-22)

[Metatwaddle]

I had a fair idea about what Mitochondria were and what they do. I think they do replicate themselves, provided their host (ie us) has enough raw materials.

But the thing I cant seem to find out or figure out, is whether or not human cells contain, not only millions of mitochondria symbiotes attached to them, but mitochondrial DNA within our own nucleus, intermingled with our own DNA.

I don't have as much biological expertise as Alyrium, but I believe the answer is no - mitochondrial DNA are completely separate from the DNA in our cell nuclei.

I'll let someone else tackle the rest.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The mitochondria, if I remember correctly replicate on their own or at least partially on their own, and are more prone to mutation. However the selective pressure to remain functional is also very high, though they do lose genes if the nuclear genome can pick up the same function.

I believe the nucleus controls mitochondria replication, in that they only will when they get the signal from the nucleus. They're more prone to mutation due to their higher replication rate (compared to the cell, anyhow).

Well yeah, they dont replicate unless they get the signal to do so, but they use their own DNA when they replicate.

But the thing I cant seem to find out or figure out, is whether or not human cells contain, not only millions of mitochondria symbiotes attached to them, but mitochondrial DNA within our own nucleus, intermingled with our own DNA. After all, mitochondria are technically a whole seperate species to humans, so if they do end up blending in some of their DNA in with ours, I wouldn't think the end result would work too well.

I dont think there is any intermingling(but I would have to look it up, I am a behavioral ecologist not a cell biologist), and if there is, it wont harm anything as the DNA would serve the same function.

They already are playing a role in our evolution. Just indirectly...

[Erik von Nein]

Er, right. Sorry about the nitpick.

But, yeah, everything I've read/heard of so far says mitochondria DNA is completely seperate from the cell's DNA.

[The Vortex Empire]

Er, right. Sorry about the nitpick.

But, yeah, everything I've read/heard of so far says mitochondria DNA is completely seperate from the cell's DNA.

I'm fairly certain that Mitochondrial DNA is in the Mitochondria, and has no effect on anything but the Mitochondria.

[Erik von Nein]

Er, right. Sorry about the nitpick.

But, yeah, everything I've read/heard of so far says mitochondria DNA is completely seperate from the cell's DNA.

I'm fairly certain that Mitochondrial DNA is in the Mitochondria, and has no effect on anything but the Mitochondria.

*blinks* Isn't that what I said?

[Vehrec]

All eukaryotes have been mutualistic with Mitochondria for a long long time. So long that their mDNA plasmids no longer contain all the genes they need to code for their own functions. These missing genes have been migrated to the nucleus. I can't say for sure that is is actual migration and not the copying of existent genes in the nucleus and their modification followed by the mutation rate in the mitochondria writing over the no-longer needed gene.

This isn't to say that mDNA plasmids aren't exclusively matralinial, but some of the ancestral bacterial genes aren't stored where they should be.

[Vehrec]

After all, mitochondria are technically a whole separate species to humans, so if they do end up blending in some of their DNA in with ours, I wouldn't think the end result would work too well. That almost makes it sound as if humans are actually a hybrid between homo sapiens and these symbiotic organisms. If DNA from two different species is combined, isn't the result some kind of chimera? Or, does this happen so often with all complex life forms that it doesn't really count, because they do this naturally all the time?

Ghetto Edit: Your concerns are quite unfounded, since the mitochondria are for all intents and purposes quite integrated into us. After all, we've been with them for over a billion years if you go by chemical evidence. DNA exchange between mtDNA and nDNA is certainly rare, and frankly would probably have a negative impact on the fitness of the mitochondria in their own little competitions. They are playing a different evolutionary game than us and its one that we live with every day and every generation. So yeah, your mother's mtDNA is yours as well, but they aren't looking to squeeze out your nuclear genes.

The reason you got mom's mtDNA is mostly twofold-Dad's got a major workout and were mostly broken down by the time your zygote was undergoing its first division, and mom had about four orders of magnitude more mitochondria. In humans, it is even doubtful that male mitochondria penetrate the zygote at all!

[The Vortex Empire]

Er, right. Sorry about the nitpick.

But, yeah, everything I've read/heard of so far says mitochondria DNA is completely seperate from the cell's DNA.

I'm fairly certain that Mitochondrial DNA is in the Mitochondria, and has no effect on anything but the Mitochondria.

*blinks* Isn't that what I said?

I'm agreeing with you.

[Wyrm]

The reason you got mom's mtDNA is mostly twofold-Dad's got a major workout and were mostly broken down by the time your zygote was undergoing its first division, and mom had about four orders of magnitude more mitochondria. In humans, it is even doubtful that male mitochondria penetrate the zygote at all!

There's an additional benefit for deleting the dad's mitocondria: doing so eliminates competition between matrilineal and patrilineal mtDNA, which can potentially use up a lot of the energy mitocondria produce. As such, the mitocondria in each cell is a monoclone, which if it weren't might result in much inter-mitocondrial, intra-eukaryote struggles which would burn much of our energy.

[sketerpot]

The first mistake Dembsky makes is that he assumes that there is only one language. But that is not true. There may be only one DNA code on earth (a codon specifying a particular amino acid in a chain of synthesized proteins) but this need not be the case. It is perfectly possible for an enzyme (or in the case of a ribosome a ribozyme) to have developed that has a different codex. The fact that there is only one used on earth is actually supporting evidence for common descent.

Not all organisms have the same mapping of codons to amino acids, which is what I assume you mean by language. Most organisms use the same code we do, but some (like mitochondria) use slightly different codes. For example, the mRNA sequence UAG in ciliate protozoa translates to glutamine, but in most organisms it's a stop codon.

There are other reasons why some codon-to-amino-acid mappings should dominate: error correction. If several codons which differ only in the last letter (the one most prone to misreading) all map to the same amino acid (which they often do), then this will automatically fix a lot of errors. Sometimes the code will make errors cause changes into chemically similar amino acids to minimize the effect of the error. Our particular code is one of the best error correcting codes possible, and that suggests that it evolved (fairly early on). If that's the case, then it should come as no surprise that there are other codes which are fairly similar to ours, but not exactly the same.

[Alyrium Denryle]

His response:

Mr. Allen,
Thank you for your concern. I know I'm out of my educational league arguing with either you or Mr. Wong. That is not to say I'm out of his intellectual league.

The whole point of my Email to him was to get him to see his own bias toward Christianity. His whole objection to religion is very narrowly focused. To be honest, It pissed me off.
The only reason he wouldn't include other religions in his diatribe is because he has an ax to grind with Christianity, and to him everyone who says they believe in Christ is a Christian. He gave me the impression that he thinks religious people aren't worth spit. I'm smart, rich, good looking, and religious, but I don't look down on anyone. (Joking.. I'm not really that vane.)

I'm very aware that I don't know the finer points of evolution, and I'm not so sure I need to know them at this point. I will keep an open mind till I find some proof or at least convincing evidence one way or another.
I know you think you have convincing evidence and I won't argue that point. However I've heard some pretty convincing arguments from the other side too. And in the final analysis, they both come down to a matter of faith. No one knows how it all began and perhaps never will.

Again - Thank you for your time and effort. I enjoyed the youtube production.

Mine

>.Mr. Allen,
>Thank you for your concern. I know I'm out of my educational league
>arguing with either you or Mr. Wong. That is not to say I'm out of his
>intellectual league.


You really cannot be one without also being the other. The first thing you did was engage in a classic ad homineum attack. You basically said "You do not have the courage of your convictions, therefore you are wrong" That is inherently bad reasoning and it does not take special training to know that. You then proceed to use very poor (and poorly thought out) arguments that you probably did not vet in advance. Later on, when Mike tries to point you in the general direction of information you might find useful, you it off and fail to act on his advice. That is not the hallmark of someone who is intellectually competent. It shows all the signs of a teenager going off even less than half cocked.

And as for Christians being magnanimous, forebearing, and forgiving, you have that dead wrong. Piss off the wrong christians and one can find themselves receiving death threats, or being physically attacked. I have been assaulted by particularly bigoted christians on numerous occasions just for existing.

Good example:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... ration.php

>The whole point of my Email to him was to get him to see his own bias
>toward Christianity. His whole objection to religion is very narrowly
>focused. To be honest, It pissed me off.
>The only reason he wouldn't include other religions in his diatribe is
>because he has an ax to grind with Christianity, and to him everyone who
>says they believe in Christ is a Christian. He gave me the impression that
>he thinks religious people aren't worth spit. I'm smart, rich, good
>looking, and religious, but I don't look down on anyone. (Joking.. I'm not
>really that vane.)

Don't give me that line, every word you typed to Mike dripped with derision. It is obvious you look down on him, and probably those that hold his views (and to the extend to which Mike and I agree, mine)

I have known Mike since I was your age (I feel so old sometimes...) and it is not that he has an axe to grind with christians. He is not prejudice. He dislikes all theistic religions equally. The question is one of target selection. Buddhists dont bother anyone, Jews keep to themselves, muslims might try for a theocracy in the western world, but at least on this side of the Atlantic, lack the ability to do anything but cause a bit of a stink when forced to take off their headscarves or are made to not mutilate their women's genitals. No, in the US and Canada it is the christians that have the power, and try to shove their religion down people's throats. It makes sense that in such an environment, if you disliked religion in general, you would focus on the one you think causes the most damage. Lets take a look at how christianity harms us in the US.

1. Medical Research: Religious objections chiefly by christians in government, hamper efforts at achieving medical advances by restricting stem cell research, research cloning, and doing genetic research.
2. Medical Care: The religious beliefs of parents literally kill their children. Jehovah's Witnesses for example refuse blood transfusions. It is one thing if they are adults and do this on their own, but it is another matter to force their child to die when all they need is one of the simplest medical procedures we perform. Other religious sects have their own restrictions, and moreover, the Christian Right is responsible for millions of deaths world wide due to their opposition to contraceptives, which is responsible for the AIDS pandemic. To say nothing of the US teen pregnancy rate due to the miserable failure that is government mandated Abstinence Only sex ed
3. Civil Liberties are under continual attack by christian groups. Gay rights, the rights of women, the rights of religious minorities like jews and muslims. All of these are under attack daily by christian groups.
4. Education is also harmed by christian groups, not just by attacking evolution, but by directing school curricula in ways that are counter productive. Banning library books, whitewashing inconvenient parts of history things of that nature.

Given this, where would you direct your bandwidth? Especially when christian and muslim creationism is exactly the same, because both christianity and islam are offshoots of the same religion. Judiasm (and poor ones at that... but I digress)

>I'm very aware that I don't know the finer points of evolution, and I'm
>not so sure I need to know them at this point.

Kid, you probably do not even known the basics. If you want, I can give you a lesson in basic evolutionary biology. I would have to devote a day or so to writing the email. But I will do it if you want.

You really do need to know this stuff. Evolution when properly understood provides a way of viewing the world that can help you more successfully make your way in it. It will help you understand how people behave for example.


>I will keep an open mind till
>I find some proof or at least convincing evidence one way or another.
>I know you think you have convincing evidence and I won't argue that point.

Considering what I do for a living, that would be wise.

>However I've heard some pretty convincing arguments from the other side too.

Really? Do enlighten me. I can guarantee you I can disabuse you of them in a matter of minutes.


>And in the final analysis, they both come down to a matter of faith. No one
>knows how it all began and perhaps never will.

No. That is where you are wrong. It really is not a matter of faith. I can apply evolution to solving real world problems and answering real questions. I can tell you why false paternity is high in the low socio-economic classes. I can tell you why we cannot make a successful HIV vaccine, and why Strep is resistant to anti-biotics. I can tell you why and how we develop in the womb, why we share so many structures in common with other animals, and why we share over 98 percent of our genetic code with chimps. My viewpoint does not require a shred of what you consider faith. It is inextricably bound to physical evidence that is independent of my subjective wants and desires. I never have to try to explain away evidence as being irrelevant or try to twist it around to shuit my purposes. I never have to shrug my shoulders and say "I will never know the answer to this question" If I dont know, I can roll up my sleeves and find an answer. Not only can I find an answer, but I can demonstrate with real evidence that this answer is true to others and then apply it to solve real world problems. Moreover, if evidence comes up that contradicts my viewpoints, I can be proven wrong.

Religion cannot do any of that. Science can. Religion is invoked at the edge of out knowledge by the intellectually lazy. Even Newton fell prey to this when he could not explain complex orbits. He shrugged his shoulders. It look Lapace to say "I have no need for that hypothesis[god]" and finish Newtons work.

The Theory of Evolution is one of the single most powerful theories in a scientists arsenal it is the unifying principle of biology and nothing makes sense without it. It is also one of the best tested, because we test dozens of times a day whenever we go into our biology labs. It has never failed a test.

How many times has religion failed its tests when subjected to scrutiny? It was proto-scientists that figured out that lighting was natural process and not Zeus. It was scientists that figured out that earthquakes were caused by moving tectonic plates grinding against eachother and were not the rumbling of angry gods. It was scientists that figured out the orbit of the planets without the need for god, that split the atom, that made new atoms, that cure disease.

To quote Huxely

Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain
~T.H Huxely

So I posit a question to you. What has religion ever actually done to further humanity?

[The Vortex Empire]

That was beautiful. I'm curious as to how he'll respond to it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I think your T.H. Huxley quote is supposed to be 'Distinguished', not 'Extinguished'. Unless you're talking about theologians whom have been previously set aflame.

[SirNitram]

I think your T.H. Huxley quote is supposed to be 'Distinguished', not 'Extinguished'. Unless you're talking about theologians whom have been previously set aflame.

It could be Extinguished. Their inner flame of passion and drive snuffed out by the hopelessness of their actions and the defeat they suffered.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think your T.H. Huxley quote is supposed to be 'Distinguished', not 'Extinguished'. Unless you're talking about theologians whom have been previously set aflame.

No. The original quote is Extinguished, as in dead or strangled

[Shrykull]

Except you know, we covered Fibonacci numbers as they relate to Golden Ratio in seventh grade...

We didn't, though I don't know when you went to 7th grade. When I was in 7th grade (91-92) we had 3 math levels. Basic Math (which included some algebra), intermediate math (which included more and more of other things) and advanced math, pure pre-algebra. Though I once took a community college math class on Algebra (since I passed the class in high school, but wanted a more in depth knowledge of it/better grade) in 2000 and a woman who I'd estimate to be about her mid forties said her school never taught her it. My aunt also, who's in her 50's never heard of exponents until we told her when she was in her 40's.

I remember a kid who was in pre -algebra in 7th grade, then algebra in 8th grade, Algebra again in 9th grade, got demoted to basic math in 9th grade, even though he already had been through pre-algebra, and had a year and a half of regular Algebra.

But, I wonder what levels of math they teach in Tennesee. Our teachers said our quality of education was much better than someone from Mississippi. I'm not sure why exactly. Here in Massachusetts, perhaps it's because we have a reputation to uphold with all our good universities. Harvard, MIT, Brandeis, Radcliffe, but education is not contagious you must EARN it.

[Count Dooku]

Except you know, we covered Fibonacci numbers as they relate to Golden Ratio in seventh grade...

We didn't, though I don't know when you went to 7th grade. When I was in 7th grade (91-92) we had 3 math levels. Basic Math (which included some algebra), intermediate math (which included more and more of other things) and advanced math, pure pre-algebra. Though I once took a community college math class on Algebra (since I passed the class in high school, but wanted a more in depth knowledge of it/better grade) in 2000 and a woman who I'd estimate to be about her mid forties said her school never taught her it. My aunt also, who's in her 50's never heard of exponents until we told her when she was in her 40's.

I remember a kid who was in pre -algebra in 7th grade, then algebra in 8th grade, Algebra again in 9th grade, got demoted to basic math in 9th grade, even though he already had been through pre-algebra, and had a year and a half of regular Algebra.

But, I wonder what levels of math they teach in Tennesee. Our teachers said our quality of education was much better than someone from Mississippi. I'm not sure why exactly. Here in Massachusetts, perhaps it's because we have a reputation to uphold with all our good universities. Harvard, MIT, Brandeis, Radcliffe, but education is not contagious you must EARN it.

My father is a geochemist by training (and for 25 years by profession), and now teaches high school chemistry and biology. The school he works at is ass backward. . .just like every other school in the U.S. Teachers are judged on how well their students perform. Now, I know a good teacher can make a huge difference (I know from experience) but to base a teacher's evaluation solely on what shows up on their student's report cards is a terrible idea. Perhaps it's not that bad in Massachusetts, but in California it's REALLY bad. My dad has received threats, bribes, and hordes of complaints because he won't change student's grades so they can play sports, go to dances, or participate in school functions as a whole. It's fucked. Really fucked.

A co-worker of his, who just so happens to be a YEC, gave her students a 'study guide' during their final exam that had the questions and answers to their biology final, word for word, on it. Keep in mind that the entire biology department has a shared final. My dad, being the science chair, had the duty of reporting her. That's a strong indication of how things work where I live. It's just not right.

[/b]

[Shrykull]

My father is a geochemist by training (and for 25 years by profession), and now teaches high school chemistry and biology. The school he works at is ass backward. . .just like every other school in the U.S. Teachers are judged on how well their students perform. Now, I know a good teacher can make a huge difference (I know from experience) but to base a teacher's evaluation solely on what shows up on their student's report cards is a terrible idea.]

It can, but doesn't always mean they are a bad teacher. If they incompetent, which doesn't seem like him. Also, if they throw a student into a class that they are not prepared for, say Algebra 2 when he doesn't have the pre-requistite algebra 1 knowledge he needs. But, yes it could just mean the students are lazy, not stupid.

A co-worker of his, who just so happens to be a YEC, gave her students a 'study guide' during their final exam that had the questions and answers to their biology final, word for word, on it. Keep in mind that the entire biology department has a shared final. My dad, being the science chair, had the duty of reporting her. That's a strong indication of how things work where I live. It's just not right.

Well, actually I did have open-book tests in high school and some in post high school, where I got my medical records training. They aren't a dead giveaway, perhaps just because people aren't careful enough to go through the entire book until they find every answer. I agree that closed book is the best way to go. I practically forget all my medical coding stuff by now, but I can define many medical terms for you, from my teacher who was very good, made drawings of every organ and explained them on the board. But, really if you aren't going to use that knowledge and if you took a lot in, you'll forget it, like a leaky bucket slowly draining.
[/quote]

[sketerpot]

A co-worker of his, who just so happens to be a YEC, gave her students a 'study guide' during their final exam that had the questions and answers to their biology final, word for word, on it. Keep in mind that the entire biology department has a shared final. My dad, being the science chair, had the duty of reporting her. That's a strong indication of how things work where I live. It's just not right.

Well, actually I did have open-book tests in high school and some in post high school, where I got my medical records training. They aren't a dead giveaway, perhaps just because people aren't careful enough to go through the entire book until they find every answer. I agree that closed book is the best way to go. I practically forget all my medical coding stuff by now, but I can define many medical terms for you, from my teacher who was very good, made drawings of every organ and explained them on the board. But, really if you aren't going to use that knowledge and if you took a lot in, you'll forget it, like a leaky bucket slowly draining.

When did Dooku mention open book tests? His anecdote was about a teacher who literally gave students the questions and answer key to the final exam beforehand. That's completely different from an open book test.

By the way, open-book versus closed-book is not a simple call that you can make once and for all. When memorizing things is important, then obviously making the test open-book is a bad idea if students have enough time to look everything up. When learning skills is important, open book tests can sometimes be the way to go. The final exam for my electromagnetics class was open book, and if you didn't know your stuff, the book wouldn't be nearly enough to save your bacon.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A co-worker of his, who just so happens to be a YEC, gave her students a 'study guide' during their final exam that had the questions and answers to their biology final, word for word, on it. Keep in mind that the entire biology department has a shared final. My dad, being the science chair, had the duty of reporting her. That's a strong indication of how things work where I live. It's just not right.

Well, actually I did have open-book tests in high school and some in post high school, where I got my medical records training. They aren't a dead giveaway, perhaps just because people aren't careful enough to go through the entire book until they find every answer. I agree that closed book is the best way to go. I practically forget all my medical coding stuff by now, but I can define many medical terms for you, from my teacher who was very good, made drawings of every organ and explained them on the board. But, really if you aren't going to use that knowledge and if you took a lot in, you'll forget it, like a leaky bucket slowly draining.

When did Dooku mention open book tests? His anecdote was about a teacher who literally gave students the questions and answer key to the final exam beforehand. That's completely different from an open book test.

By the way, open-book versus closed-book is not a simple call that you can make once and for all. When memorizing things is important, then obviously making the test open-book is a bad idea if students have enough time to look everything up. When learning skills is important, open book tests can sometimes be the way to go. The final exam for my electromagnetics class was open book, and if you didn't know your stuff, the book wouldn't be nearly enough to save your bacon.

You have to know where to look, how to apply the information, etc etc etc. It does however make it so you dont have to memorize equations...

[Straha]

Something of note on his E-Mail exchange. It's summer. He says he's in Ninth Grade but (barring summer school) he's most likely not in any school right now. Which means he probably hasn't had any secondary schooling what-so-ever, nor any actual biology classes (unless he went to a decent primary school. Which I doubt for some inexplicable reason.)

[DPDarkPrimus]

The pursuit of knowledge is exactly what sets folks like us and folks like this idiot apart. For all my life, if I was curious about something, I would try to find out information about it, whether it was from a book or just asking people.

It's obvious a kid like this doesn't care if he doesn't know something, he just says "Well it ain't important to me" or whatever.

[Revy]

I think that's a general view held by most theistic religious types. They all tend to have one holy book or another, maybe a few extra writings, and think that's all they'll ever need to read. I could be wrong, but wasn't that why the Library of Alexandria got burned in the first place?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Something of note on his E-Mail exchange. It's summer. He says he's in Ninth Grade but (barring summer school) he's most likely not in any school right now. Which means he probably hasn't had any secondary schooling what-so-ever, nor any actual biology classes (unless he went to a decent primary school. Which I doubt for some inexplicable reason.)

I was taught the basic concept of natural selection and evolution in the seventh grade, and I don't recall learning any more about evolution from required classes until the 10th grade.

Because of NCLB, his curriculum might be similar, even if his primary school stunk.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Latest response

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in
the progress of science. It is useless."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research,
National Center of Scientific Research.

Just one mans opinion.

Mr Wong is a brilliant man and ahead of me educationally. I will never say
he is my intellectual superior.

You probably haven't red our entire exchange as he refuses to post any of
my comments in his "hate mail" and only the first exchange onto his forum.
I'm not sure if he believes some of his assertions or not , but when I
presented him with irrefutable evidence that Abraham Lincoln was not an
atheist nor a deist, he accused me of not answering his previous "points"
and pointed out his engineering degree,his superior education,and said I was
nothing more than a precocious kid.
As far as I'm concerned that isn't such a brilliant comeback for a man with
his degree of education.

In my opinion, he's not as sure of himself as he would like everyone to
imagine.

I explained my attack. It was somewhat knee jerk and I settled down a bit
and tried to be civil and respectful toward him in the later exchanges. He
admitted he posted my first comments so his readers would have something to
laugh at. Evidently, he hasn't read much Dale Carnegie.
I do believe him to be somewhat less than courageous.

As for Christianity, it is obvious that our definitions are so different as
to be irreconcilable. I tried to explain what a real Christian is as opposed
to an Adolf Hitler and met with stubborn refusal to budge or even
consideration that if viewed from my perspective, there might be a point to
be taken seriously. (again, annoying to say the least.)

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one, any more than saying you're
a mechanic having never picked up a wrench makes you a mechanic.

If by chance (all probability) you haven't read our entire exchange, I will
be happy to forward it to you if you want.

Thank you for your offer to send

Mine

>Just one mans opinion.


It is also a misquote, removed from its context and twisted beyond its original meaning by a creationist quote mine. Do try to be intellectually honest with me, if you dont mind.

To answer specifically:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 922AATdW6c

The simple fact is, Evolution is useful. You know those nice happy flu vaccines you get every year? Without being able to use evolution to predict changes in flu strain, they would be ineffective. Same with other diseases. Even if that was not a blatant lie, either by you are the ones you get your quotes from, the man would still be factually wrong.

>Mr Wong is a brilliant man and ahead of me educationally. I will never say
>he is my intellectual superior.

Again, because you are a 14 or 15 year old who wants to play tough guy and go off half cocked.

>You probably haven't red our entire exchange as he refuses to post any of
>my comments in his "hate mail" and only the first exchange onto his forum.
>I'm not sure if he believes some of his assertions or not , but when I
>presented him with irrefutable evidence that Abraham Lincoln was not an
>atheist nor a deist, he accused me of not answering his previous "points"
>and pointed out his engineering degree,his superior education,and said I was
>nothing more than a precocious kid.

Instead of making vague references to these exchanges, I invite you (I have his permission) to send me copies) If your evidence is as incontrovertible as you say it is, I should be rather well convinced of it. According to him, you cherry picked, skipped over large sections of his argumentation, and generally engaged in intellectual dishonesty so atrocious that he did not feel as if he should be bothered with it.

That is why Mike does not show you any respect, or consider you worthy of having a reasoned discussion with.

You then proceed to simply attacking the man's moral character, calling him a godless savage.

Who is more moral? The person who acts rightly for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do, or the person who acts rightly because they fear punishment or hope for reward? In case you cannot grasp the answer, it is the former. The latter is the morality of an abused animal, forever cringing under its masters boot. Then there are the pesky little facts. Atheists are under-represented in US prisons as a proportion of the population, more atheistic developed nations have lower crime rates and have more humane systems of governance (no death penalty, better health care systems, etc)

Frankly, from what you have shown me, you are hardly precocious. Precocious means "unusually intelligent" which you certainly have not demonstrated. Perhaps you mean "prepubescent". That would make sense for Mike to say.

>I tried to explain what a real Christian is as opposed
>to an Adolf Hitler and met with stubborn refusal to budge or even
>consideration that if viewed from my perspective, there might be a point to
>be taken seriously.

Except you were engaging in a true scottsman fallacy. Now to be honest, Hitler was Evil and had neurosyphilis, but the simple act is, a LOT of christians, people who honestly believe all the jesus claptrap also believe on other crazy things. Like ghosts, and Tarot reading. To say those individuals are not christians is to engage in fallacious reasoning. And in your case, is a ploy used to avod having to face the reality that Hitler was a devout catholic. The man even tried to join the clergy when he was younger, and he collaborated with the catholic church throughout his evil regime. Of course you then try to attribute his racism to evolution, despite the fact that he twisted it beyond all recognition. At least I wont say that Hitler did the things he did BECAUSE of christianity. He just was one.


>Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one, any more than saying you're
>a mechanic having never picked up a wrench makes you a mechanic.

And what exactly defines christianity? Here I was thinking it was the acceptance that Jesus is the son of God and died for your sins, risen on the third day following his execution and ascended bodily into heaven.

I would appreciate those exchanges.