Reply to juvenissen

[Veritas21]

My apologies if I spelled your name wrong. I was writing from memory and it is rather late. I felt that this discussion might warrant a new post, and didn't know if you wanted to enter it into the debate section or not. Let me know if you would like to.

This is a simple one. We do not know the cause of cancer and we still can not cure cancer. What can you see on these facts about science? and about God?
Why wouldn't God let us to cure cancer? Is cancer a real enemy of human beings?

We absolutely know the cause of most forms of cancer (I can explain to you the basics of a few different varieties if you would like, just let me know), but the nature of cancer itself is such that it is particularly difficult to only target cancer cells for termination. There are already numerous forms of cancer that we have cured, including one that we have cured by simply taking a pill orally (If you want the reference for that let me know. I got a very impressive run down of this by a cancer researcher a year ago and would have to look it up, but it was most impressive). The issue is, "cancer" refers to a large group of different ailments rather than one specific disease, so curing all forms of cancer will take time, but is certainly progressing. We are anything BUT ignorant on the subject.

God does not decide what we do or won't do. We have cured some forms of cancer already and in my opinion, will eventually cure the rest. He has no say on the matter as far as I am concerned. 50 years from now (or at whatever time cancer is effectively cureable) I will be very interested to see how many people choose effective scientificly developed treatments versus simply praying for God's help.

Would you like to enter this into the debate forum?

 

[paug]

Sorry if I'm intruding, but your point is good. Religion does tend to be strongest where science doesn't have a foothold - 100 years ago, that would have been medicine. Today, since in the last 100 years massive progress has been made in medicine and healing of ailments previously thought incurable, religion is strongest in e.g. "the profound questions of the universe". Religion simply doesn't have anything worthwhile to say in any other discipline - science has surpassed it as, for example, a tool of healing (if one could call religion that). Religion, quite simply, isn't required. We have a perfectly good explanation of our universe in the sense that religion and its ideologies don't bring anything new to the table, or advance our understanding of any field significantly.

Sorry if I veered off-point here. BUt if this were to develop into a debate, I'd gladly spectate.

 

[Veritas21]

I actually opened this topic up in a larger form in the debate forum. I'm curious to see if there are actually any takers. I also posted asking the forum admin to create an "ask a scientist" subforum because in my experience I have found that most fundamentalist theists are grossly uneducated regarding proper science, and have received poorly explained propoganda from their churches since childhood. Kind of sad really...

 

[juvenissun]

I actually opened this topic up in a larger form in the debate forum. I'm curious to see if there are actually any takers. I also posted asking the forum admin to create an "ask a scientist" subforum because in my experience I have found that most fundamentalist theists are grossly uneducated regarding proper science, and have received poorly explained propoganda from their churches since childhood. Kind of sad really...

One does not put down any answer until the question is clearly understood. I do not know what do you want to debate for. According to your example, cancer and God, there is a layer of glass laid in between. These two issues do not directly engage. If you can put them together, I will consider.

 

[Veritas21]

One does not put down any answer until the question is clearly understood. I do not know what do you want to debate for. According to your example, cancer and God, there is a layer of glass laid in between. These two issues do not directly engage. If you can put them together, I will consider.

I do not believe they can be put together because I do not believe God exists. This was your job to explain to me how science cannot justify things, and only God can. Perhaps I should choose a simpler topic?

Explaining how we can see God clearly demonstrated in a topic of my choosing was your challenge. Since I do not believe you can effectively demonstrate that God's involvement in cancer, I am willing to return your challenge. I have opened a post up in the debates section. Name anything (in my area of expertice since I obviously don't know everything about everything, and can only speak intelligently to the areas which I study) that you feel can only be attributed to God and not science, and I will explain the science behind it.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not believe they can be put together because I do not believe God exists. This was your job to explain to me how science cannot justify things, and only God can. Perhaps I should choose a simpler topic?

Explaining how we can see God clearly demonstrated in a topic of my choosing was your challenge. Since I do not believe you can effectively demonstrate that God's involvement in cancer, I am willing to return your challenge. I have opened a post up in the debates section. Name anything (in my area of expertice since I obviously don't know everything about everything, and can only speak intelligently to the areas which I study) that you feel can only be attributed to God and not science, and I will explain the science behind it.

Your topic is logically wrong. If you do not believe the existence of God, then you do you believe anything done by God. If so, what to debate for?

 

[Veritas21]

Your topic is logically wrong. If you do not believe the existence of God, then you do you believe anything done by God. If so, what to debate for?

Follow your example: ANYTHING you can see in your surrounding, if you see it detail enough, you can see God.

If you need an example, just name one thing, and I will help you to see.

You are the one who claims to be a "Creationist Scientist." First, may I ask your education level and academic background (just so we're on the same page)?

Secondly, I am just asking you to live up to your challenge. You state that anything I see, you can find God in. I am assuming by this you mean that anything I state cannot be explained WITHOUT the presence of God. Is this a correct statement?

If this is an incorrect statement and you claim that anything I state can be explained with OR without the presence of God, then what evidence is there for the existence of God? If you choose the latter then you admit to the ability for science ALONE to explain everything.

This is the focus of my intended debate. Can science ALONE explain everything, or is the influence of a deity required? I can say in all of my academic areas of study, science alone is enough. I challenge you (or anyone for that matter) to find a topic in biology or psychology that cannot be explained by science alone, or rationally speculated.

 

[sfs]

We absolutely know the cause of most forms of cancer (I can explain to you the basics of a few different varieties if you would like, just let me know),

This is true, provided you have pretty low standards for what it means to know the cause of something. We have a detailed understanding of the molecular basis for a few cancers, and a rough idea of the basis for most cancers.

but the nature of cancer itself is such that it is particularly difficult to only target cancer cells for termination. There are already numerous forms of cancer that we have cured, including one that we have cured by simply taking a pill orally (If you want the reference for that let me know. I got a very impressive run down of this by a cancer researcher a year ago and would have to look it up, but it was most impressive).

Numerous forms of cured cancer also sounds like a considerable overstatement. There are a few types of cancer for which chemotherapy has a decent chance of effectively eliminating the cancer. Chronic myelogenous leukemia is one (which may be the one you're thinking of), and testicular cancer is another. I can't think of any others off-hand. For the great majority of cancers, metastatic disease is incurable.

 

[Veritas21]

Numerous forms of cured cancer also sounds like a considerable overstatement. There are a few types of cancer for which chemotherapy has a decent chance of effectively eliminating the cancer. Chronic myelogenous leukemia is one (which may be the one you're thinking of), and testicular cancer is another. I can't think of any others off-hand. For the great majority of cancers, metastatic disease is incurable.

I was referring to the curing of chronic myelogenous leukemia, specifically by means of the drug Gleevec. I would have to do a bit more research and get back to you on some specifics, but I know there are some very promising treatment options which utilize hormones secreted by the cancer tumors to surpress the tumors from continued growth, and in vitro I believe they actually killed the cancer specifically with an excess dose of the hormones. Let me know if you'd like me to check into this further.

We have a detailed understanding of the molecular basis for a few cancers, and a rough idea of the basis for most cancers.

That detailed understanding of the molecular basis for cancers is of the utmost importance. I feel that the general trend of things is a bit more optimistic than you would have us believe. I am especially hopeful about the hormone methods because it seems as though they would be applicable to a large range of cancer types, and the only real work involved would be identifying the specific hormones for each particular form of cancer.

 

[juvenissun]

Secondly, I am just asking you to live up to your challenge. You state that anything I see, you can find God in. I am assuming by this you mean that anything I state cannot be explained WITHOUT the presence of God. Is this a correct statement?

If this is an incorrect statement and you claim that anything I state can be explained with OR without the presence of God, then what evidence is there for the existence of God? If you choose the latter then you admit to the ability for science ALONE to explain everything.

You mixed things a lot. To "see" and to "explain" are two processes.

Unless you get your thinking clear, there is no point to talk anything further. I don't think it is easy for you to identify a question.

 

[Veritas21]

You mixed things a lot. To "see" and to "explain" are two processes.

Unless you get your thinking clear, there is no point to talk anything further. I don't think it is easy for you to identify a question.

To see and to explain are the same thing. If you claim something to have God involved in it but cannot demonstrate it, how can you possibly claim that God is involved in the first place?

As a metaphor some people can see the good in every situation. To support their claim of "seeing" good, they identify what components of the situation can be "seen" or "explained" as good. For example, if a child died tragically in a car accident, certainly this would be a bad situation. However, one could see good in how the event brought the family closer together, perhaps initialized new safety measures in that area, etc. To claim to see God in something requires a demonstration of how he is present.

If you mean by your statements that you subjectively "see" God in everything, that does us little good. What good does it do you if I "see" science in everything unless I can demonstrate how that is helpful? I see science in everything and an understanding of said science provides a unique opportunity to change our environment and help ourselves. You clearly continue to dodge the larger issue I am trying to present. What can you demonstrate cannot be explained by science but can be explained by God? (I should note that anything you claim will have no evidence saying God is responsible, but rather, be lacking scientific evidence. I am willing to overlook this minor detail for the sake of making a point).

 

[juvenissun]

To see and to explain are the same thing. If you claim something to have God involved in it but cannot demonstrate it, how can you possibly claim that God is involved in the first place?

Simple. Some cancers were cured while doctors said no cure.

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Simple. Some cancers were cured while doctors said no cure.

Again, how can you claim God is involed???? It's clear you can't provide any evidence that God is involved and you can't meet the challenge. An honest man would admit defeat, how honest are you?

 

[sfs]

I was referring to the curing of chronic myelogenous leukemia, specifically by means of the drug Gleevec. I would have to do a bit more research and get back to you on some specifics, but I know there are some very promising treatment options which utilize hormones secreted by the cancer tumors to surpress the tumors from continued growth, and in vitro I believe they actually killed the cancer specifically with an excess dose of the hormones. Let me know if you'd like me to check into this further.

I'd be interested in anything specific you have to share, but you should be aware that there have been a number of highly promising treatments in the pipeline that have ultimately fizzled. A few, like Gleevec, have been highly successful. Gleevec is the ideal therapy: it is targeted specifically at the mutated protein that causes CML. CML is easier than most cancers, however, because it does have that single defective protein as its cause.

That detailed understanding of the molecular basis for cancers is of the utmost importance. I feel that the general trend of things is a bit more optimistic than you would have us believe.

The trend is very positive and data is pouring in, but we haven't gotten there yet. That's why there are large efforts underway to find genetic risk factors for a variety of cancers, to characterize gene expression levels for many types of cancer, and to identify genes that are deleted or amplified in tumor cells. The next ten to twenty years are going to make a big difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, how can you claim God is involed???? It's clear you can't provide any evidence that God is involved and you can't meet the challenge. An honest man would admit defeat, how honest are you?

How can you say God is NOT involved?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

How can you say God is NOT involved?

Easy: the question is how creationists can say god is involved, after all there is no need for a god to explain anything other than that, that fills in the Gaps.

I.E. God of the gaps

But god’s biggest job is as a comfort blanket for those scared of their impending mortality

 

[Veritas21]

Simple. Some cancers were cured while doctors said no cure.

If by this statement you mean that some people have survived cancer without medical intervention this is certainly true. However, there are many reasons why this occurs. Two things must happen in order for cancer to become a problem (in most cases).

1) The telomerase gene must have a mutation that activates it. This gene is reasponsible for replacing telomeres which in a nutshell, allows the cancer cell to replicate an unlimited number of times.
2) Evolutionary history has put a safeguard against the activation of telomerase in normal cells. If a mutation occurs that activates the telmoerase gene, then the cell enters what we call a scenecent state (it basically sits there and does not replicate). For cancer to occur, a mutation must occur that eleminates this safeguard and allows the cell to replicate.

There are a multitude of reasons why an individual with cancer could be cured from their affliction, and they are completely biological in nature and have nothing to do with God. My area of research is on aging and aging pathology so although cancer is touched on, I do not know the "natural" human defense mechanisms to fight cancer in great detail, but I can assure you that there are many present (perhaps you could do some research and educate yourself?)

For someone that fancies themselves a "Creationist Scientist" you should have some sort of background on cancer and the body's defenses against it. I am still curious what your academic background is as you claim to be an all insightful creation scientist yet have never revealed any shred of evidence on what your qualifications are. Having read the Bible doesn't make you worthy of any title with the term "scientist" in it.

But god’s biggest job is as a comfort blanket for those scared of their impending mortality

I agree with this statement. I am very interested to see how religion survives if biological immortality is achieved. This will be a most interesting psychological and sociological study.

I'd be interested in anything specific you have to share, but you should be aware that there have been a number of highly promising treatments in the pipeline that have ultimately fizzled. A few, like Gleevec, have been highly successful. Gleevec is the ideal therapy: it is targeted specifically at the mutated protein that causes CML. CML is easier than most cancers, however, because it does have that single defective protein as its cause.

First of all I would like to thank you at having an understanding of this topic (probably a bit better than mine) before talking about it. To the best of my knowledge most forms of cancer involve a mutation that activates the telomerase gene, and a second mutation that stops the cell from remaining in scenecent form. There is a very controversial (though highly brilliant) new theory called WILT, which basically says we can cure most all forms of cancer by knocking out the telomerase gene completely and simply replenishing human cells with injections of certain types of stem cells. Of course, this would require highly matured stem cell technology to be feasible.

The most promising main line theory that I am aware of (I might have mentioned this earlier, I don't remember) is one that involves hormones. When you have a cancer tumor, there are generally many secondary tumors that are in a scenescent form, and are kept there by the secretion of "cancer hormones" from the primary tumor. This is why when the primary tumor is killed, many cancer patients have new tumors spring up all over and kill them. The secondary tumors were there all along, but they were kept in check by the primary. There is a new therapy that involves taking the hormones that the primary cancer tumor secretes and entering synthetic forms of it into the body. The cancerous tumors inside the body recognize the hormone as coming from the primary, so they become / remain scenescent. I believe in higher doses the hormones actually caused a remission and reduction in the size of the secondary tumors or eliminated them completely. This information was provided to me through a friend that is doing research in this area, so I would need to talk to him for full details. Regardless, there are feasible and comprehensive strategies being investigated.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Simple. Some cancers were cured while doctors said no cure.

When an amputee’s limb miraculously grows back, we may be in a position to discussion this.

Remember it is a favourite one of creationists to point out how fallible humans are, and then when it suits you; you become blind to this fallibility, just like you are doing now.

Right answer;

The doctors got it wrong, because they are fallible.

Wrong answer

God did it, because the doctors are infallible.