Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2008-10-09T16:32:25Z

Superstudent: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}
I see this question as developmental. Morality, by my definition is having evolved or developed enough to expand your definition of self-interest to include others', as your definition of self includes self in family, self in community, etc. Then, what is moral is making decisions based on what is best for most, rather than selfishly pursuing only narrow self-interest, even when that is uncomfortable. Applied to the homosexuality debate, Why in the world would it be necessary to defend or justify something that is part of nature, something people (and other species) are born to? The answer to that is threefold: a). Some social conservatives use the bible to justify discrimination and intolerance against gay people. This is the case even though we did not all agree to be ruled by the bible, that the bible says different things about homosexuality (the Eunuchs shal inherit the earth), and that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit in a modern world (hence we don't smite people for mixing fibres in their garments, burn a sacrificial bull at the altar, condone slavery, or stone people for the 'abomination' of eating shellfish). b) Some social conservatives use twisted science to condemn gay and lesbian people, even forgetting that women are included, and looking only at so-called 'research', such as the discredited ex-gay ministry, which reinforces their belief systems. c). Those same social conservatives actually CAUSE homosexuality to be a critique of 'traditional values' (although there is NOTHING non-traditional about homosexuality in and of itself-- it's been around since before tradition!) by pushing homosexuality into the shadows by using the bible and twisted science to advocate for discrimination and intolerance against gay and lesbian people. There is nothing new about wanting to abridge the rights of people we are not comfortable with, and there's a self-reinforcing dynamic of systematic mistreatment of people who are different, leading to defensive behavior, leading to stereotypes, which are used to justify further mistreatment. There is also nothing new about blaming a group of people we are uncomfortable with for all society's ills. It's reassuring and provides a simple answer-- even if it's the wrong answer.

Alexxjm
--[[User:Alexxjm|Alexxjm]] 15:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:How do you know? God said so? Sounds arbitrary to me.[[User:Cthx]]

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no morality exists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more SharonS. In debates, everything hinges upon what definitions you use. I personally would define morals as the "natural law inscribed on a man's heart" As the Bible dictates that God inscribed this law, no morals would exist without him. However, Athieist definitions set apart different definitions, which would provide different answers. [[User:BlackholeStorm|BlackholeStorm]]

umm..no....'''IF''' he did '''NOT''' exist do what you want and the guy with the most toys wins...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:47, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or any afterlife. However, I have morals. In fact, I feel that I am more moral than people who are moral just because god says they should be moral. What I do simply for the good of mankind you do only out of fear of burning for eternity in a lake of fire. I am also free from the prejudices against other religions, atheists, and homosexuals that comes with following a religion. There is no God, but I do not kill and steal. [[User:CBarber|CBarber]]

i very much agree with CBARBER execpt my views are slightly different. I am not atheists. I feel there is somthing out there but I have yet to know the truth. But though I do not follow one set religion i refuse to allow myself to be controled by any. I have my own morals and Ideas of human dignity and no religion is going to make me change that. If there is a "god" of some sort morals are still up to the individual person. [[USER:STILLCONTEMPLATING|STILLCONTEMPLATING]]

God does not dictate morality, as he does not exist. Religious 'morality' is not morality at all, as you are following a moral set out of cowardice and fear than because you actually feel it to be right. God is dead, meaning that the Christian morality is no longer practical or reasonable to follow as enough people have freed themselves from it, seeing as it is truly the most foolish moral code ever set forth [[by man]]. I think that even if a god exists (which he does not), it would still be up to people to decide what was right and what was wrong and to define them. Also, seeing as there is (unsurprisingly) no debate set up in which I can voice this opinion and still be relating to the subject of the debate: Christians, much like conservatives, are almost always stubborn, irrational, foolish, cowardly hypocrites.

There could be no standard of Morality withouth God. I could still sit here and say whether something is right or wrong, but that would just be my opinion based upon my personal preferences. Then everybodys morality would be subjective to whatever they prefer. Morality can only be an objective standard when God's in the picture who is infinite and unchanging. -- Ultimahero. March 3, 2008

==Yes==
Morality is stored in our mind, and then we act according to this morality. People who believe in God get a morality through Christian education, the Bible, church, etc. People who don't believe make up their own morality. In my opinion (this goes to the censors out there, who already deleted this once, when it clearly DID NOT violate any Commandments or whatever) God does NOT interfere with morality in any way (unless you believe he taught morals to people long ago and they teach it to you now). Still, morality only depends on those who use it.
[[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. ""Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Everything that God supposedly tells us to do in books like Leviticus are the very same kinds of rules that the leaders of a society would come up with to best survive. "God says" not to lie with with the same sex, because you can't get children and proliferate the society unless you procreate with the opposite sex. Same goes for lying, stealing, killing, etc. Those 'morals' are made for a primitive society that has to struggle to survive and are mostly irrelevant. For example, I'm sure all here have disobeyed at least some of God's morals he set down for us. Have you ever:
::::* Eaten bacon, pork, or ham? (''And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.'')
::::* Owned or used a mule? (''Do not mate different kinds of animals.'')
::::* Grown more than one plant in a field or garden? (''Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.'')
::::* Worn polyester or any synthetic fabric? (''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'')
::::* Shaved your sideburns or trimmed your beard? (''Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'')
::::* Stolen or lied?
::::* Married or attended the marriage of a non-virgin? (''If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.'')
::::* Gotten divorced and remarried? (''He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."'')
::::* Had a brother who died with no children and not married his widow? (''"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother."'')
::::Quite obviously, these morals set for us by God are terribly outdated. This leads me to believe that anyone who answers 'no' here is a hypocrite, since they are obviously not following ALL of God's morals, or else they would be in jail for disobeying society's morals, such as not stoning women to death because they had sex before marriage. [[User:Hargrimm|Hargrimm]] 23:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in god but I still believe everyone should be a good person no matter what. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. You shoudl treat others how you want to be treated. What goes around comes around. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:But how can you know what "good" is without God? Anything else is just something made by a flawed human being. A perfect moral code can only be created by God. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you wish to take that stance, one could argue then how could man be imperfect? One of the biggest criticisms of Plato's forms was that imperfect cannot be derived from true perfection (an absolutely perfect being cannot create imperfection, it's not in their nature), thus if God is truly perfect, then humans must be perfect, yet Christians argue that is not the case. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not recognize the existence of god. I do however have morals, thanks to [[Aesop]], the legitimate father of morals. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Assume God does not exist, and that my parents, me and all the other religious folks are simply wrong. Since there is no way to prove the non-existence of God, the (by assumption, falsely) religious amongst us still have a code that they follow that they regard as "morality." Rather than being derived from God, that moral code likely was derived either from other men or possibly arose as a result of certain fundamental qualities of mankind as social beings (social "animals" I suppose). If that were the origin of morality, would the resulting rules no longer be "morality." It's a semantic game at that point, but I'd have to say that, in substance, there would still be rules of conduct that we would each choose to follow. In such a world though, I fear that the moral relativists would be right to assert that no particular morality has any primacy. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

there is no such thing as a perfect moral code. a moral code works only for the society that it was formulated for, however all moral codes across the world contain the same basic structure which must be in place for humans to live as a society. wanton killing of other members would lead to a breakdown in society as would stealing, adultery and other activities that reduce the trust of other members of the community. this is fairly solid proof that morals come from societies in general and that god has no say in the matter. these basic rules of society again come into play when animals coexist, wolf packs, tribes of chimpanzees and gorillas, schools of fish, and many other examples. if anyone wishes for a longer, more convincing argument on this subject, i recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, chapters 6 and 7. --[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

In the assumption that god does exist and that he did write our moral code (i.e the ten commandments) then how is it people defy these codes on a common occurance. This would suggest that us as people aren't relyant on god to dictate our morals then it would be natual to assume that you cold have morals without god. --[[User:concretemuncher|concretemuncher]]

Yes, there can be morality without the existence of god. The logical interpetations of laws based on universal maxims shows logical proof that specific acts (bound by duties) are immoral on the basis that, when applied to a universal status, logically self-defeat themselves. I'm basically reprising Kant here - I'm surprised that this concept came up without at least mentioning Kant once. Granted, I don't necessarily think Kant is the best moral system, and wonder whether there CAN be a perfect moral theory, however it does provide the framework that a morality can exist based on the rules of logic and reason, and thus one can (in theory anyway) conceive moral maxims based on their logical propositions. [[User:Royalcrown|Royalcrown]] 10:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)

"Why have morals?" I ask this question, not because I think morality is pointless, but because morality is not a universally recognized value and is thus not an ''inherent'' value. It is a ''subsidiary'' value, leading to something else. I have heard people state that without God, might makes right. Does the existence of God change that? As I mentioned, not everyone has the same concept of morality; from this one might assume that the lack of a universal and objective moral observer would lead to each individual choosing his/her own definition of morality. This is flawed. For the sake of argument, lets assume that God exists and is a perfect entity. This, however, does not account for the imperfection of man. God may have his word, but will every single human interpret that word in the same way? Consider this scenario: You hear a voice that you are absolutely certain is the word of God, but it tells you to commit horrible atrocities (im not saying that God is evil, this is hypothetical, cool off). Would you carry out the will of God, or would you side with your personal moral conflict? The latter debunks the argument that God defines morality, because you obviously have some conception of morality that you consider superior to the word of God. If you answered with the former...welcome to Al-Qaeda. 9/11 was the result of men who were absolutely certain that God willed them to slaughter thousands of innocent individuals. For them, God defined morality. Who are we to say that our perception of God's will is superior to anyone else's? None of this is to say that morality is invalid, ultimately subjective, or pointless. Nor is it to say that the belief in God negates the belief in morality. Personally, I like morality. I think our social structure needs moral fiber to maintain stability and the equitable distribution of happiness. But that's just it: we need morality, not because we require divine favor, but because ''happiness'' is the universal and inherent value for which morality exists to serve. Every action we do is instinctively geared towards increasing happiness (this is admittedly a complex conjecture, and, if you want more details, I suggest John Stuart Mill's ''Utilitarianism''. It's a good read:) The atrocities of 9/11 were immoral, not because they were against God's will, but because they're result was a massive net loss of happiness (pain and suffering).
If god does not exist, can anything be morally wrong? Absolutely. --[[User:Theroamingfoot|Theroamingfoot]] 23:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Immorality can be found even in non-Christian societies. Anthropology has proven that there is a taboo on acts such as incest and murder even without Western or prominent religion. [User:Tegan]

==Questioning the Question==

If God does not exist, then all material in the bible, all theology and all material written by an army of believers is of highly dubious origin. At the very least it is 'informed speculation'; at its worst it is dangerous nonsense. That could (but does not have to) potentially mean that all 'morality' derived from a fear of hell, damnation and/or a vengeful god is invalid, and therefore irrelevant or even subversive. Many of our 'Rights and wrongs' are derived from this belief system, and our morality is the code which encapsulates the 'rights' (as opposed to the 'wrongs'). The 10 Commandments for example are an encoding of such values, which appear to rely for their validity and upon their enforcement upon a belief in an aggressive and vindictive deity.

However, there are alternatives. Humanists also derive moral codes without the need for a supporting deity. Transhumanists who believe that after a [[technological singularity]] has occured, human beings will transcend the form that we currently inhabit, are intensely concerned with ethical issues. God is nowhere in these debates; they are all about how we have a responsibility to the universe, the earth and our fellow creatures, both now and in the future. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', it is pragmatism and it is the responsible use of intellect and the application of prudence and common sense.

This means that morality based purely on a belief in God is highly fragile, for if someone chooses NOT to believe in God, their moral code fractures and they can basically behave with impunity. In medieval times where theological & scientific understanding of the world was in the hands of a few, and the horizons of the common people were limited, and the idea of God was an understandable extrapolation of the patriarchal system of family and local government, a god-based morality might have worked extremely well.However, a simple belief in a universal God in a world where we are citizens of a global community with different sets of core beliefs, different religions and therefore different moral codes, does not work at all, and, it can be argued leads to the very situation we find ourselves in today, with disillusioned sections of society who do not accept conventional moral and ethical norms of behaviour.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of the reason for a moral code is simply to be able to function as a society. With no moral code whatsoever, our future as a race would be radically limited. Even without a biblical code to adhere to, we would have most likely developed a set of rules (do not kill each other, steal, etc) otherwise there would be none of the co-operation required for us to survive as a species. As a race, we are so inter-dependant on each other (for example, even the most powerful need people to work to provide food for them) that some basic morals are required so as we can co-exist and ensure our survival. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Morals are clearly man-made. They change with the times. Six years ago, the idea that Americans would torture people would have been morally abborent to us. Now we don't blink an eye
We cheer for more, like the Romans at the coluseum

==Common Good==
So then as your own deity you can transform morality to fit your own worldview? You also seem to say there is no right or wrong to base common sense on. Then as a Humanist you can create your own morality to whatever you feel will benefit your universe. I would question where you feel responsibility toward something greater, such as the universe, while at the same time rejecting something else greater than yourself that is acknowledged by your fellow creatures.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:No man or woman is an island. There is society, and there is consensus. Whatever makes society work, and perform its functions will be an effective moral code. Different societies will do it differently. It is not an individual choice. Look at it this way. In England we drive on the left; all other European countries drive on the right. This is purely convention and is completely arbitrary, but we do it to allow traffic to flow smoothly. It is also convention that we do not murder, pillage and rape. However, there are (and have been) occasions where moral codes have allowed these. In war we are allowed to murder people. Pillaging was a common event in historic times: the Romans, Greeks, the Vikings all engaged in it. Rape was a feature of life in medieval England; at one time the Lord of the Manor had the right to sleep with any new bride. All of these people had gods, and their behaviour was condoned by their theology. The fact is that some theologies (such as that of the Aztec's) required murder. Abraham was quite willing to kill his son, because he expected his god to require a sacrifice.
Morality = the set of conventions which allow a particular society to operate, that's all. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Of course?==

Anyone can come up with a moral code. The problem is that since its source is only human then it will subject to anyone wanting to change it. Inalienable rights will no longer exist since they merely come from people who will give or take them away whenever it's politically beneficial to whomever is in charge at the time. That would not be good for morale, would it? But of course, the question begins with the word if. If you are a godless individual then morality will be something you can change whenever it will benefit your behavior. A person who acknowledges God will not be able to play free and loose with morality set in stone. So then, who would you tend to trust your children with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think I would trust my children with people who I know and have grown to trust, regardless of whence came their morals. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Anyone can come up with a moral code, and many do. However, society invents moral codes for its effective functioning and continued survival. It is not in our collective interest to have murder, mayhem and thievery rife. We need at least a consensus of behaviour from most people to have society function effectively, and in the main the moral code is devised to do just that. However, there are some biblical moral codes, such as 'an eye for an eye', which we have dispensed with because they are now deemed inappropriate. To kill a member of someone's family because one of their family has killed one of yours may have worked in biblical times, but not in today's society, where families are nuclear, and the code would end up destroying two families. Even the bible recognised this, when it was superseded by 'turn the other cheek'. Moral codes need to change according to circumstance and need. If there is an absolute code, backed up by a deity, things can never change, because there is always some sacred text which is held inalienable. A hard & fast code tied to a supreme deity also runs the risk of subversive re-interpretation of the code by deviants with vested interests (witness the re-interpretations of the Q'uran by radical scholars). We have seen how this can happen, and should not think that it is impossible to happen in the West. The existence of the US is testament to the fact that there were radically different interpretations of biblical moral codes in the 16th & 17th Centuries. In reality whatever moral code exists, and whatever its basis it will always be coloured with political expediency.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you say that you would do away with having inalienable rights? Just because people have their own liberal interpretations of moral codes negates their usefullness? --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You keep on bringing up inalienable rights? What do inalienable rights have to do with God? One can believe in the inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self determination without acknowledging God. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: "Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term in English common law. Property rights were alienable (could be sold) or inalienable (could only be inherited). Inalienable here simply means something which is taken to be fundamental, and therefore unquestionable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundlesss. claiming that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. In the piece above I was pointing out that some people hold their sacred texts to be unalienable, that is they cannot be questioned. This is a ''very bad thing'', especially where sacred texts are in conflict with one another, as it denies discussion and negotiation. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It can be argued that those who accept Christianity are far more dangerous in straying from their morals than others, since any sin (aside from blasphemy) is forgivable. This, in effect, grants Christians a free pass to do whatever as long as they ask for forgiveness. I know the common responses, that repentance means making an effort not to commit such sins again, that Christians should want to live like Jesus and try not to sin, etc., but the fact remains that Christianity gives its followers the right to do almost anything they please. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: But not only Christians - any religion can be guilty of this. Look at the way that radical Islam has subverted the Q'uran to its own ends. It is the presupposition that there is a text 'revealed by God' which is the problem. By the very nature of language and human development, words change meaning over time, we constantly interpret and re-interpret. What words mean to one generation, may mean something completely different to another. The word 'gay' used to mean, light, jolly and carefree. 'Groggy' was a description of a course-grained material (grossgrain), not a state of semiconsciousness. If you suppose that a deity has revealed to you a text for all time, then because words change in meaning, it is clear that each generation will, by necessity, be forced into creating their own meanings from that text. This is where the danger lies. Let us assume that the 'revealed' word ''is'' the word of God. It is absolutly clear that not all re-interpreters of the code do, or even in principle ever could, agree; many are in conflict with each other, and some appear to be in direct contravention of the fundamental tenets of their faith. How can an ordinary person possibly be expected to decide what is right and what is wrong in this maelstrom? The fact is that we don't; moral codes are informed by, but not dictated by, religious beliefs. Moral codes are basically human social constructions, and are shared understandings of what is required to live peaceably, and ensure the continued survivial of our genes and memes into the next generation. A believer might claim that their 'god' has inspired them to do this, and I can't argue with that, as it is their belief. However, that does not explain why atheists, pagans and other non-monotheists would choose to live their lives according to the same shared moral codes as them. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Christianity does not give its followers the right to do almost anything they please. Nor do Christians have a free pass to do whatever. Anyone that hides behind a label they think will protect them from harm are mistaken. Chances are that they have abandoned all morality their religion requires of them. It seems that everyone here lives in some sort of Christianized society here. So that when the God word is invoked only the Christians are thought of. The Inalienable rights of morality that are common to all such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't need to come from God. You can let those things be given or taken at the pleasure of your local autocratic official by invoking the common good. Since there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong. When people are unable to discriminate between good or evil they will not recognise any moral wrong. A Humanist doesn't recognize any higher authority and may change the morality at their pleasure, whatever that may be. From the 1st Humanist Manifesto to the Amsterdam Declaration. The Christian can't do this since their original texts don't change. If you're a Humanist, what moral rights do you have that are guaranteed permanent? Or considered to be inalienable that won't be changed with a subsequent manifesto?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the love of all that is good and decent, now you're saying a humanist can't recognize good and evil? These are not concepts that require a God! You are slandering large portions of the world population.

:::*Humanists can change their morals at a whim
:::*Humanists can't recognize good and evil

:::It's a shame your concept of God-given morals doesn't include one about civil behavior. Mine does, and my morals don't come from God. Funny how that works out. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, but it's all right when Christianity is being slandered here. I don't object to different viewpoints, even incorrect ones, without accusations of slander. I'm being as civil as anyone else on this. If you are a Humanist, you still haven't answered my question. It's an honest question? But if you won't then yes it would funny indeed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, no, it's not all right for Christianity to be slandered. You have made too points which are deeply offensive to people and aren't true. That's slander and it is uncivil. As for your question, please define "moral rights" and I'll give it a swing. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Human rights are basically moral rights. But how do you claim to derive these rights from? I claim inalienable moral rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being endowed upon me by my Creator. Freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to defend oneself would be moral and human individual rights. Are yours from God or an institution? If from God then they can't be taken away by others. If from an institution such as a government then they can be taken away in an instant. What is the guarantor of your rights that are human and moral? If God doesn't exist then moral rights and wrongs can be considered relative to the whim of those in authority over others. So that an individuals morality of right and wrong will be rendered meaningless. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I derive those rights based on a couple things. The fact that, in general, my fellow man knows that the benefit of the community is to his benefit as well. And, failing that, that my fellow man knows that if he denies those rights to someone, that those rights will be denied him.

::::More importantly, morals are not rights. They are responsibilities. They are the responsibility of everyone that lives in a community.

::::And while the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges a creator, enumerates those rights in a general way, it also dictatates that: to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And that it is the Constitution of the United States, which does not mention a creator, which delineates and enforces those rights. Both documents, of course, are products of the Enlightenment. You should learn about the Enlightenment. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If you consider this hypothetical you will be committing the unforgivable sin. You will not be able to take back this mistake so for the sake of you immortal soal do not go any further.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Ever heard of "treat others as you want them to treat you"? In other words don't do things that you know will hurt people.
Sounds like a damn good moral code to me, and it's universal as well.

Jesus even said something like that, but you don't have to be religious to live by this rule.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I totally agree. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I'm not a Christian and I don't believe God exists, but that doesn't mean that I can find nothing of value in the Bible). This idea is part of all major religions, and is equally at home in secular thought. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:51, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Does morality exist, in the Christian, Biblical sense, that certain things are good because God tells us they are good, or does God tell us to do things because they are good? If God did not exist, would we still believe that it is wrong to take something that is not yours, or to kidnap and torture someone? I believe that the answer is a resounding "yes." I have never read the Bible. Before this year, I had never attended church. Yet somehow, I have managed to be a fairly good person, with stronger ethics and a better head on my shoulders than most of the people I have met at church. How can this be? The answer is simple. I derived my moral code from my good sense of how the world -- being what it is -- works, and what is beneficial or harmful to humans -- being what they are. The Bible and other religious works can be used as guidelines for living a good life, but I don't believe that any of them are inerrant. Humans, in general, have a degree of consciousness and intellect that allows them to make judgments on a moral statement, i.e., whether it is true and useful. Now, it's all well and good to say that we have the ability to make those kinds of judgments, but to whom, if anyone, do we owe responsibility? Well, as self-aware beings who feel emotions such as fear, happiness, sadness, and pity, and who live in communities and socities, we have an obligation both to ourselves and others. We are obligated to take care of ourselves and to live a good life, and we are obligated -- to the best of our ability -- to others to ensure that they have what is necessary to live a good life. Sorry if that was rambling an incoherent... I usually shy away from debates, so I'm not accustomed to proper debating style. :) Anyway... discuss. [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 13:53, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
i think that if the bible was the one true moral authority (and God being omnipotent) then empathy would not exist, because it would be unnecessary and humans would just do as the bible instructed without having conflict. Since that is obviously not the case Christianity cannot have its cake and eat it too. Ultimately i believe that this all goes back to the concept that Good isn't Good without Bad. If bad things did not occur then good would just be the way things are. I think that the argument that its a test from God has become recognized as ludicrous. [[User:superstudent|superstudent]]12:31, 9 October 2008

Talk:Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-09-23T02:40:13Z

Superstudent: /* No */

Ans. Isaiah 45:6&7 "-----I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create EVIL: I the Lord do all these things".
Reason: Romans 9:22&23 "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".
It may be clearer if you read from ver. 10 to 24 of Romans Ch. 9.
I think such a God would want to create, and for a good purpose. Col.1:16 "All things were made by him and for him." Gen. 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR own image." John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" (Christ) and, the word was with God, and the Word was God." It seems all was made for the glorification of Christ, and to exercize and exibit God's attributes.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godevil.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:40, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

No he did not. He did not create darkness either. Darkness is merely the absence of light. He did not create cold, as cold is merely the absence of heat. And he did not create evil, as evil is only the absence of God. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

== According to you, he must have! ==

Did God create evil? He must have, since he created everything else! I believe that if this god does accualy exist, then he is of our own creation! The concept of good and evil is nothing more than our own attempt at rationalization. Isn't it so much more simple to pass the blame than it is to accept responsibility!?

If good and evil aren't real, then there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust. There must be good and evil, otherwise there's nothig wrong with anything, and you have no basis for speaking out against murder, rape, etc. Those things can only be wrong if they are evil. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:05, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== It's complex (so is everything else) ==

God didn't create evil. He created the choice and temptation and the idea of evil. On a clean slate, a blank mind, no thoughts whatsoever, no matter how empty ones mind is, murder (for example) is always wrong (in a lucid state of mind). See, God planted the idea of evil, and to stay away from it and then he planted the temptation of it. choice. because if God simply gave things away, we'd be dependant, and that's not the way He rolls.

After all, what is evil? Is mudering fellow man evil, no, that is a choice the man makes. He gave us choice.

God can't tempt men to sin. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==

Good is derived from God's character. God is everything that is good and holy. Evil is everything that is against God. For example, murder is wrong because God cannot murder. The same goes for lying, stealing, etc. But God gave people free will, and Adam rebelled against God. God gave us the ability to choose, but didn't make us choose it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

well think about this.... if there was no concept of evil then there would be no concept of good, (kinda like if there are no losers then there are no winners) there fore he must have, or the Christian god doesn't exist. In this subject it is not logically possible to have your cake and eat it too. [[superstudent|superstudent]] 10:39 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-09-23T02:17:34Z

Superstudent: /* uhhh */

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wrong format for a debate ==

Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
==Visual Inspection==
===Lenski's Paper===
(quote)
===Discussion===
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)

==Study Omissions==
(quote)
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly. Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Anything wrong with the cites for it? By the way, not every block is proper. If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion. The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.) They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only? As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Maybe need to add another section ==

It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== e-mail ==

For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here? If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template. Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Professor?==
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Digital Organisms==
Lenski is famous for two things. His work with his work E. coli and his work with digital organisms. The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page. I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!! One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist. He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question, "What did he do with E. coli" as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]]. The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner. Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==

The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:Lenski does say that in his email. He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views. Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound. You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month. It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone. Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"? As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent". Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson. It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent. I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data. But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you. He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say "no" to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny. Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review. You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request. Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested? I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson. I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:

::::Dear Mike,

::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.

::::Respectfully,

::::Ray Bohlin, PhD
::::President
::::Probe Ministries
::::www.probe.org
::::rbohlin@probe.org

::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon. My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden. He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::Can you provide the link to Prof. Behe's response? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Here is the link http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_dp_artist_blog [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 09:08, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::What's going on? Hasn't anyone at conservapedia gotten on the phone and even tried to recruit an christian scientist to follow up on this? Why not?? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==

Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state]. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds. It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]]. Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I knew the reason why. I just wanted you to say it. Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited. I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data. I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research? [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance. If that is being naive then so be it. Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Good to see we agree that atheist scientists can become blinded by their own prejudices and produce misleading conclusions (although we disagree on many other things.) So why is it that one shouldn't be suspicious when the scientist in question is being evasive about the requests for data? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 15:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

''A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis.'' That is precisely ''not'' the case. Faith in God is natural and right: it is, if you like, the 'default' condition of mankind. Atheism is a perversion of belief; it takes a wilful step into ignorance and defiance of God. Once that step is taken, all values of truth and objectivity fly out of the window. Atheists cannot practice science; the need to 'prove' and 'justify' their terrible howling void of non-belief means that they can only practice pseudo-science. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I honestly hope you don't ever become a scientist. I say this not to slight you, but because your view on how it should/does function is horribly skewed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:30, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==

From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:

<blockquote>
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.
</blockquote>

Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistical Significance ==
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly. The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that "A number of Cit+ clones were isolated..." on p7900. Asking how many is all well and good. But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance. The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: "all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected." It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what? Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Visual Inspection ==
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the "LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time." The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, "Yep, that's turbid," and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want, a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== "Lenksi's biographical sketch does not exhibit any background or experience in mathematics or statistics. " ==

This dirt-digging is getting ridiculous, IMO. Prof. Lenski got his doctoral degree in Zoology. His thesis was "Effects of competition and disturbance on ground beetle populations". That area and evolutionary biology are math intensive with a substantial emphasis in statistics. His second and third papers are: Lenski, R. E., and P. M. Service. 1982. '''The ''statistical analysis'' of population growth rates calculated from schedules of survivorship and fecundity'''. Ecology 63:655-662. and Service, P. M., and R. E. Lenski. 1982. '''Aphid genotypes, plant phenotypes, and genetic diversity: a ''demographic analysis of experimental data'''''. Evolution 36:1276-1282. Did the person who wrote the headline comment even read any of Lenski's works? I would suppose not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:00, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== uhhh ==

How would you obtaining E. Coli samples help? I don't think any of the editors or sysops here have the qualifications or the equipment to do anything with them. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
perhaps if the sysops presented the entire paper then they could have a more concrete basis for their disagreements and put their questions into full context rather than raising arguments that leave the reader blind to the whole situation. For instance you could have the paper and then say we disagree with this and here's why blah blah blah, instead of pulling random sentences from the paper without context and dissecting them. Because when you think about it critically it only undermines the sysops's arguments with the research. [[User:superstudent|superstudent]] 10:16 22 September 2008