The groom was attired in a black tuxedo, and the bride—decked in a white silk gown and pearls—carried a small bouquet. Max and Bella exchanged rings, and the reverend declared them wed. And then the bride and groom ran off, barking and wagging their tails.
Max and Bella, you see, were Chihuahuas—and their owners had just had them joined in “holy muttrimony.” The dogs’ owners say they did it just for fun—but I am not so sure. It appears to be just one more sign of the success of an aggressive animal-rights movement—one that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. And even some Christians are being unwittingly pulled into their orbit.
For example, I know of a Bible-study group in Los Angeles that recently laid hands on a sick dog, praying God would heal her—and if not, receive her into heaven. Dozens of websites offer so-called biblical “proof” that animals are resurrected just like humans. Well-meaning evangelical authors write of their hopes that God will admit their beloved pets into heaven.
Of course Christians have a specific command to care for the creation. But that is not what we are witnessing here. These are signs of Christians weakening their own best defense on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans. Christianity teaches that humans are the only part of creation that bears the image of God. We are, thus, unique in all creation, conscious of our existence, aware of death, and capable of works of great creativity. Humans alone have eternal souls, which confers upon us a unique moral status.
Many animal-rights activists dismiss any distinctions between humans and animals as “speciesism.” Princeton professor, Peter Singer, defines this as “a prejudice” that favors “the interests of the members of one’s own species . . . against those members of other species.” If the material world is all there is, if humans are nothing more than the product of evolutionary forces, then they are essentially no different from pigs, dogs, or rats. We are merely the latest stage in evolutionary development.
Singer and PETA are consistent at least. Their campaigns to grant constitutional rights for pigs or make it illegal to keep laying hens in cages are perfectly logical. It is Christians who behave irrationally when they fall into naturalist positions out of love for their pets.
I am not suggesting that people should not love their pets. There are few things more painful than the death of the family pet, long-time companion. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that animals have souls. They will perish with the rest of creation. When Christ returns and our bodies are resurrected, we will live in the new heaven and the new earth—where there may be new (but not resurrected) animals.
If we fail to understand our own doctrines, more and more Christians will accept the idea that animals and humans are morally equivalent. Animal-rights activists will then press on: eliminating animal agriculture and banning life-saving research, and yes, Singer says, affording the same rights to animals that we give to humans.
Christians, arguing that humans alone are made in God’s image, can make the only logical defense of the uniqueness of human life. But if out of sentimentality we treat our pets as if they have souls, we give away the argument. What tragic irony if the Church finds it has been conquered through our beloved pets.
____________________________________
From BreakPoint®, March 11, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
"and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). "
More like the Earths age is around 4.6 billion, while oldest signs of life being 3.85 billion.
"Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). "
Sorry, Dawkins doesn't refer much to the Origins on life in TDG, he might mention it only by name, but doesn't go into any details at all. His book is not very detailed in biology at all, its mostly theological or philosphical rebutalls to the most common justifications for being a theist.
"Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"
No Chris, I say lets stick with the NATURAL explanations, as to go outside the natural means you've gone off onto the supernatural which ceases to be actual science. ID as a hypthesis rests on some unknown, unseen, untestabled designer which can't be critiqued at all directly, a totally unscientific resolution to learning things.
Many of your predictions are not predictions but simple observations, others have been set up as unfalsifiable.
Prediction 1: Could mean a common designer.
Prediction 2: Non-falsifiable, even if you found such "contradictory" hiearchies, you would simply deem them "transitionals" or find another place for them.
Prediction 3: Forgive me, I have no idea what this is (haha)
Prediction 4: unfalsifiable, at least the way you have propositioned it. I think that if you found a mammal like bird, then you would simply find some way to explain it through evolution. I think large gaps and explosive varieties of species would be a better test. (Does it pass, oh no!)
Some are good, but they certainly do not prove that evolution must be true, and the vast majority are not mutually exclusive with ID.
Agentorange,
Sorry for the delay, I have been on vacation.
First, minorities do not have to vote to be slaves, majorities can vote for it, and then minorities can be forced into it. Rightness or wrongness is not based on democracy, you need to provide another source for moral truth, or else abandon moral truth for relativism.
"All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1."
We have not had infinite time, the universe is at most 15 Billion years old, and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). 3 Billion years is infinitely smaller than infinite time (or near infinite). Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). The math just doesn't work like you want, unless you can come up with an infinite universe (please do, and then submit your ideas to the meta-physicis society so that you can recieve the nobel prize).
"Well, no not quite."
Point taken, "Everything in the realm of biology" my point still stands, that making a statement like this kill scientific enquiry. Any holes that are in evolution, you just say, "Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"
Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.
Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.
Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.
Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.
27 Predictions that had the potential to falsify ToE and did not because the prediction was proved to be correct.
Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA." - even if latest findings indicate that perhaps up to 20% of what we though was "junk" isn't that still leaves a lot of "junk")
Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.
Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.
Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.
Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.
Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.
Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).
Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should show statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are not related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.
Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."
Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.
Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.
Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.
Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.
Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.
Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.
Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.
Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.
Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.
Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.
Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as traces of gill formations in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g. nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.
Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.
I understand, vacations and family time are important.
“democratically vote for slavery to be legal,”
We I suppose (technically speaking) yes, we could. But that in itself doesn’t make it any more ethical than being written in some sacred holy book paritally condoning it either. Society progresses and it’s truly hard to imagine in a democratic vote that people would willingly subject themselves to be slaves and stick around for it to unfold for it to happen. Regardless of legality on slavery or other laws, people at least to the smallest degree or as a minority will commit illegal acts.
“and possibly scientific truths”
In regards to epistimology, we only have ‘science knowledge’ and not science ‘truth’, but I get your point. In regards to the REPS, they are elected to make not just to decide on behald of the people, but to decide on what’s in the best interest for all parties involved. In that regard the laymans don’t know what’s good for them as generally most can’t distinguish pseudo science (ID) that argues from incredulity, isnt’ tested, isn’t a science theory at all and from actual science which is. The Dover trial was interesting Chris, as Behe had to admit in court that under his looser definition of what is deemed scientific, Astrology alongside ID would be deemed science. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t not progress.
“No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility.”
But Chris you’re ignoring that over a hypothetical infinite (or substantial amount of time) all outcomes become no just possible, or even plausible, but rather certain. All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1.
“you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now.”
Well, no not quite. Evolution as a model can be used for predictable, falsifiable tests, but it won’t explain everything in every realm of science, it will mostly be relevant to biology. Just b/c we don’t have certainty in a detail of the theory (PE or Gradualism) doesn’t mean the model/theory can’t be used to produce results. A good science theory is strengthen by the number of correct predictions it makes, its essentially reaffirming the veracity of the model. I’ll list some predictions the theory has passed above.
Agentorange (Part 1)
Sorry this is late, I was on vacation.
"You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication."
Well, we could democratically vote for slavery to be legal, and if we were truly democratic then it would be legal, even if the minority voted against it. You did not answer the assertion.
"You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices."
No, I know the difference, and I know what we have. But you mixed up what I was saying, I was challenging your assumption that Democracy gets to decide what is right. Whether it is representative or not, the REPS should not ever go against certain moral truths (such as they should never legalize rape) and possibly scientific truths. As you vociferously defended yours.
"Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up."
Again, you missed my point. I said, "Who decides that Democracy is right?" Because you seemed to think it was so good. From our perspective Democracy is great, but from Fidel Castros, or from Bin Laden, well not so great. Does you or my or 50 people's saying it make it right? No, there must be something else. It works (well sometimes, I'd say most democracies end up being miserable failures if you do not have resources and a stable economy) but that does not make it right.
Agentorange (Part 2)
"Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?"
No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility. You avoided the direct answer. I said "IF we did elect to eat babies, would it be good?" If you say no, then democracy is not good for deciding truths, if you say yes, then you speak for yourself. If you say nothing (as you basically did) then you are just stalling.
"What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!"
Again missed the point, you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now. Well that is like saying, "The flat earth theory can explain everything it is having trouble with now" It kills scientific inquiry. I am not making this stuff up, it just so happens to be obvious, irrefutable, objective truth. (I don't smoke either)
"Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws."
Am I seeing this? You have created a brand new theory (or one I have never heard of)! That there is a fundamental law that says that nonliving matter will become living and subsequently evolve into higher life forms. This is not even a theory, it is a humungous assumption. It is equivalent to saying, "Life came into being, because life comes into being." Well isn't that nice... I am going to need a full outworking of your theory (I am sure it will take many many books to write, so send me a link to buy them off of e-bay). It is one thing to say that certain elements under certain circumstances ungergo fusion, but it is incomprehensibly another thing to say that elements become alive and then naturally evolve.
”Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it"
What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!
With every piece of evidence is found, it has the potential to change or destroy any theory. When DNA was discovered in the 60’s it had the potential of destroying the evolutionary theory. Instead, it has filled in many of the gaps of knowledge and lead to more tests to validate evolution as a unifying theory.
In all realms of Science, we opt for a natural explanation as this is one least cluttered and most pure and useful as it produces falsifiable evidence, where as using ‘god done it’ isn’t falsifiable, doesn’t explain anything or answer anything. For this reason we use theories that unify and explain things best, and thus far as far as the diversity of life goes, evolution is the leading tested theory. If you have another that equally explains all evidence, is falsifiable then start forming hypothesizes, running tests, follow the scientific method, publish you results and have them torn to shreds under peer review. And then IF it makes it out, it can and should be taught in public schools. But you see, the ID folk don’t want to go that route, rather they’d rather have their totally untested and unsupported idea injected directly into the science classroom.
“I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to REPRODUCE and EVOLVE. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).”
Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws. Wouldn’t such laws be governed by god and regardless would therefore he’d be the indirect cause of how and why matter does what it does in the end anyway? Of course, so what exactly are you crying over? if the god makes all the laws from the get go, then anything derived from it is therefore directly or indirectly credited to his working.
You’re right, ID isn’t limited to Behe, but his and its loose standards it uses to be considered within the science is used outside of Behe. FYI, Behe doesn’t doubt common ancestry (including humans) he only suggests that god/ID worked his magic somewhere in the process. As soon as a biological system is reproducing then Natural Selection can act on it and thus evolve.
Chris333,
“when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good?”
Well no. From the slave owners point of view all was well, but from the other perspective from the slave this was an obvious injustice. You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication.
“And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? “
You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices. If people hold elections and their REPS choose not to back ID, then the people have spoken via our democratic republic process. In Dover, ID was shown to not be Scientific and the only way to bring such an idea into Science would be to loosen the standards that Science works under, which as I mentioned earlier would result in other pseudo sciences like Astrology also being coined as scientific. Surely you can see the problem when the Science stands are being brought so low to incorporate ideas like Astrology as being Scientific.
“Well who said democracy was right?”
Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up. “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill.
“And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good?”
Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?
Ive been gone for the weekend so this is gonna be along one, sit back and get some popcorn....
to Agentorange: too comment on this:
"No, we shouldn’t. We should strive to teach what is backed by facts and supported by evidence so we can be sure we are progressing our knowleedg for humanities sake. It’s not a matter of ‘forcing’ anything, it’s about teaching the otherwise ignorant kids who can’t tell the difference from science from psuedo science on what the facts and evidence supports. "
Thats what i have been saying all along, give them the facts and only the facts not hearsay and conjector, the problem comes when teachers, administrators, legislators, parents and politicions try to force incomplete and inadequate "facts" upon the the students. Another thing tho is that you expect me to believe that we shouldn't give the kids all the information on a subject just because they may make a judgement about history, i don't buy that... However, we make the same judgements about their ability to determine when is a right time to have sex in school, we give them birthcontrol and condoms in schools because we believe that "they are going to do it anyway" right, well the problem lies there, we know certain people are going to kill them selves should we provide the gun and bullets, yet we don't think that these children can make an honest interpretation of the data they are provided. pish posh....
To star2, no prob, i didn't read any of the back and forth after i posted because i got busy with the family and easter, but it was a great weekend...
To Howard, welcome back, i am not sure why responces got erased again, and i didn't get to read any of them to respond but i hope you read my post, God has laid you and your anger heavy on my heart, I hope you don't mind me praying for you.
Agentorange,
"Well, we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a form of representative consensus governance, so the majority certainly does make the decisions."
So, by your thinking, when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good? And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? What if the majority would rather discriminate against a certain minority? I know you don't really believe what you have said. (I hope not).
"I would say both have areas of strong evidence..."
Certainly, however I can test gravity right now, just by dropping a penny. I cannot test evolution right now. That was my point.
"We democratically decide and adjudicate our laws and punishments..."
Well who said democracy was right? And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good? Does that make it good? If not then your idea about democracy deciding right and wrong is virtually worthless.
"What ‘holes’ do ID folk speak of that are legit, tested, and show evolution can’t now or ever explain?"
Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it" I always get people tell me that if you assert God you kill science, well I'll be... Besides that ID is not limited to Behe. I am an ID proponent, because I believe that God did create us, whether evolution was the 'vehicle' or not. That makes me 100% Intelligent Design. I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to reproduce and evolve. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).
Howard
God laid it on my heart that I needed to apologize to Slacker for deleting your comment to him. I tried to do what is right when God convicts me of the need to do it.
star2, (yeah, it's me again, the person the Christian Post doesn't like very much)
I noticed you did the right thing in your comment to Slacker, which surprised me. I have to respect what you did. Thank you.
Chris333,
Since you're falling in love with the idea of ID acting like it's science, perhaps you should read something from the trial regarding Behe and under HIS definition how 'ID is science, so would Astrology.'
"In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.
So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit
.
He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition. Details aside, his definition was broader and more inclusive of ideas that are "outside the box." So, as we learned Tuesday, during Day 11 of the Dover Panda Trial, under his definition of a scientific theory, ASTROLOGY would be a scientific theory". (my emphasis added)
Source: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Chris333,
"Who gets to set the rules?" .......the majority? Certainly not”
Well, we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a form of representative consensus governance, so the majority certainly does make the decisions.
“Dwen's original statement was that evolution has more evidence than gravity”
I would say both have areas of strong evidence and like all theories have small details to yet be worked out, or more fully explained, but they don’t negate the theory itself but rather shed light on how exactly the processes work.
“You have turned eating babies into what could be called business proposition. Eating babies alive is not morally wrong it is only possibly societally disadvantageous.”
So eating kids is a business proposition….sounds like a non sequitur to me. We democratically decide and adjudicate our laws and punishments, so in this sense morality is somewhat relative as it progresses overtime.
“However I do want to reassert that there is no real way I can know for certain that evolution is what happened.”
Well the evidence might help. refer to those links I gave earlier).
“I do believe that holes in the evolutionary theory should be vigorously investigated, and taught in public schools”
Chris, I am perhaps sure you’re aware the ID proponent’s arguments are born from arguing over gaps of ignorance or personal incredulity and failing to understand how evolution would address such issues in the first place. I.e., the arguments Behe had were wrong and shown to be only by closely examining he evolutionary evidence for his instances of IC. What ‘holes’ do ID folk speak of that are legit, tested, and show evolution can’t now or ever explain? All the ID camp has going for them is to 'teach the contreversy' as ID was deemed creationism and not scientific b/c it's not falsifaible.
ID is nothing more than neo-creationism and Dover showed that without a doubt. You have to wonder, if ID has so much evidence for it, why didn’t Dembski, Myers and other DI clowns stand up for their pet idea in Dover.
agentorange,
I will begin by addressing your position on morality. First, you have not given a system of morals, you have given a system of societally beneficial prospects. You have turned eating babies into what could be called business proposition. Eating babies alive is not morally wrong it is only possibly societally disadvantageous. But what does it really matter if something is societally disadvantageous? The only reason we should care is if we really care about society as a whole, or for the most efficient propagation of our species. But you cannot force someone to accept this view.
Regarding evolution. Yes I said that I do not necessarily deny evolution. Dwen's original statement was that evolution has more evidence than gravity. And you are right in quoting me that I do not believe it makes even slight difference. However I do want to reassert that there is no real way I can know for certain that evolution is what happened. You said yourself that the average layman cannot test evolution, and the theory of evolution is one of the more complex fields of study. I am in about as good a position to say, "Evolution is not true!" as I am to say, "Evolution is true!" Either way, my literal faith in the Bible is unchallenged. I do believe that holes in the evolutionary theory should be vigorously investigated, and taught in public schools. For that I applaud the ID crowd, because they have challenged evolutionary theory, which is always a good thing.
Chris333,
I'll try to answer your questions on moraltiy and perhaps the notions of 'why be moral in absense of god'. To be sure many animals are also moral, symbiotic and altruistic in their nature, but this brings an interesting question to be pondered. Why would animals need to be moral at all? The answer might suprise you. As it turns out, being moral is benefiical to many species survival.
Slacker,
“as for your contention that we shouldn't teach both sides of an issue, i don't agree with that at all, teach both sides either the cival war, the holocaust or WW2 in general and let the facts speak for themselves, rather then forcing only one side of an argument on unsuspecting kids...”
Are you listening to yourself? Why does it sound logical to allow or ‘let the kids’ decide on the efficacy on matters for which they aren’t educated in? Does it make sensee to teach both alchemy and chemistry and then let the ‘kids decide’ especially when they lack the basic understanding of how chemistry works?
Does it make sense to teach both sides that the holocaust did and didn’t happen and merely leave it up to the kids whom are ignorant on histoy to decide if it really occurred? No, it doesn’t sound very intelligent to lead our kids on that all the evidence for the holocaust are somehow equal to the virtually non existant evidence against it.
Don’t you see the inherit harm in leaving something that is a well known fact (holocaust) and why it’s not in our best interest to give them (the uneducated kids) the impression or false information that it didn’t occur? Should we teach both sides about the moon landing too then?
No, we shouldn’t. We should strive to teach what is backed by facts and supported by evidence so we can be sure we are progressing our knowleedg for humanities sake. It’s not a matter of ‘forcing’ anything, it’s about teaching the otherwise ignorant kids who can’t tell the difference from science from psuedo science on what the facts and evidence supports.
In science, theories live and die accordinging to how much evidence and supportive testing upholds it. The end goal is deducing what epistomological ‘truth’ is in all matters, we are here to make a dent in the universe so to speak.
Chris333,
“Evolutionary theory and Gravity are not equal, they are not equally testable.”
I wasn’t trying to compare the 2 in how easily they are for laymens to test and observe, after all if that were the criteria then no realm of Science should be trusted by you as you’re arguing you can’t demonstrate validation experiments. However, this stance isn’t logical, as you personally can’t also conduct Quantum, Atomic and other theories, which requires labs and sufficient technology to test.
My comparing the 2 is relative to how both rely on observable, testable evidence, which produces falsifiable testing which can strengthen or weaken the efficacy of the model/theory (this is paramount in science and progress) No, you can’t readily test all the aspects of gravity either though as you without sufficient technology and math can’t personally demonstrate ‘Relativity’ and yet this principle is nearly a century old and well understood and accepted. You would feel a fool to argue that although you can’t test the relativity aspect of gravity that some how it’s void right? Same goes for all other realms of science.
I noticed earlier you mentioned you have no issues with evolution and that it in itself doesn’t negate god and that I would absolutely agree with as the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
“Either way, I am fully convinced that we did not arise from incredible chance and non-living matter randomly+natural selection”
Well, if god created all the fundamental laws and their derived forces then the answer would be no, there is nothing really random about it. Matter doesn’t behave in a completely random outcome, it obeys laws and so at the very foundational level, indirectly or directly you have an all-encompassing stemming governor. As far as Natural Selection, it too isn’t random at all, only mutations are random, but the processes and how it breaks down work according to again natural laws, so again it too can be directly or indirectly attributed to the governor.
star2,
If a post contains offensive, or abusive language in it, then you never need to apologize for flagging. Dwen can complain all he wants, but do not let it get to you. I don't have much patience for whiners and name-callers.
Dwen said, "You nothing but an annoying pest."
We have to remember that young people are reading these posts too, and they don't need this kind of ugly language, they get enough of it in schools.
Slacker
Slacker
correction: "... Chris333 at 11:23pm." should read " ... Chris333 on Fri at 11:23pm."
Slacker
Dwen posted a comment on Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:01 pm in response to your last post to him at 3:02 pm. I was the only one who read it. The content of his post to you was in line with and in the same spirit as his post to Chris333 at 11:23pm. .
I flagged his post. Please forgive me for flagging it and not allowing you a chance to read what he wrote you. I was out of line here especially since it was not directed to me.
"You're immoral and I want nothing to do with you."
Still waiting on that system of morals... I mean you have already said that anyone who gets in your business is risking their life... yet you call us immoral...
"(I want) An end to the constant harassment."
IRONY, IRONY.
"I don't want to be your favorite subject anymore. Just leave me alone."
Who is making who a favorite subject? What self-pity?
Dwen, you can't deny it because you did it. So, then, do you want me to apologize for bracing you with your actions, or what? Because that would require no apology from me. Rather, it seems you owe a lot of people apologies.
You owe apologies for calling all christians immoral, dishonest, liars, and for personally insulting their religious beliefs. And you CERTAINLY owe EVERYONE an apology for your mass flagging of everyone's comments a couple of weeks ago. And you owe everyone apologies for your disrespectful attitude in general in your treatment of posters on this site.
Dwen, I don't know why you have such a burr under your saddle, but your angry tirades will never remove that burr. If you are interested in any kind of real discussion, there are a number of people here who would converse with you if you can be civil. But throwing angry, convoluted jabs and insults just turn others away from you. Your choice.
Dwen
I appoligize for flagging your comments to Slacker.
I pray that God will remove from your heart and bring healing to you in whatever is bothering you about God and Christians.
GMG
The last comment that I made to Dwen that I deleted was "May God heal your tormented soul."
You haven't really answered my question. Do you categorically deny flagging ANY of star2's comments?
Dwwen
Yes, I deleted my last comment. There was a reason for it.
Dwen
Re:It's very obvious that star2 has been flagging my comments and the comments of other people for a long time now.
How little you know. I don't flag very often. I did not flag the comments the 5 atheists made on the article,"Gospel of Godlessness...". You actually accused CP management for doing it. How little you know.
Tonight I only flagged you twice. You flagged every comment that I made on at least three articles. You are the one who is out of control.
Re:When she isn't busy doing that, she is spreading lies about people.
Not so big boy. You are the liar. Everything I said about you is true. It was all in reference to the flagging rampage you went on Sunday Mar 9.
Re: I have never seen her write an intelligent comment.
It is rare you ever say anything intelligent.
Just about everything you say is wrong, including your opinions about God and how everything came into being and why it is the way it is.
Your godless evolution fairy tale is only making you look foolish. Only a blind illogical person would buy into that lie. There is not one stitch of evidence for it.
Re: All she does is harass people,
You harass the Christians all the time. I am fed up with you refering to my God as the sky fairy and etc. That is why I deleted the comment you made to Slacker.
I don't care how much time you spent on it.
You have fed us your hatred for God long enough. I am sorry that you had bad experiences with the Catholic Church you were raised in. If they were hypocrites then I am sorry. If people laughed at you when you were a boy about the religious beliefs you held then I am sorry. The world is cruel. Unfortunately, you have become as cruel as they were when you were growing up.
You probably enjoy being ugly towards Christians and towards their God. Fine, in the end you are the one who is going to be hurt the most.
We don't really care what your opinions are. You can spit them out all you want and it will not change a thing. You will not make one convert.
So then Dwen, are you categorically denying that you flagged any of star2's comments?
She didn't flag herself, and I didn't falsely accuse you. Why are you saying she flagged herself, you know better than that. What do you hope to gain by making yourself out to be a martyr?
Dwen
>>>After you get done apologizing for falsely accusing me,<<<
I didn't falsely accuse you. You flagged her after she flagged you. Look, she owned up to flagging you and told you why she did it. You don't have to agree with her if you don't want to. But if you are interested in conversing with people, then addressing the issues that come up are part of that.
>>>It's very obvious that star2 has been flagging my comments and the comments of other people for a long time now. When she isn't busy doing that, she is spreading lies about people. I have never seen her write an intelligent comment. All she does is harass people, lie about them, and delete their comments, not caring how much time was spent on them. I never met a more immoral person.<<<
That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? She doesn't go around flagging people on a regular basis. You must admit that she did own up to flagging you. If she admitted it to you, don't you think she would admit it if she flagged someone else?
Everyone has their own style of addressing issues. If you're offended by someone's style, address it directly. But making sweeping comments solves nothing.
And btw, anyone who posts here spends a bit of time typing it up, which is one of the reasons why if you flag someone they deserve an explanation.
Well now, look at the flagging, could it be that the moral Dwen, who believes censorship is so dishonest, is having a bit of a temper tantrum? Well bob, danny, danny2, first, oldguy, xxxx, yyyy, and all those other letter combinations, if you truly believe censorship is wrong, then it's time you practiced what you preach. If you REALLY believe that you and everyone else has the right to air opinions as they see fit, then you will let others do that, without censorship, no matter what. And if you believe that someone is truly deserving of flagging, then you would own up to it and state the reason why. At least, that is the moral, honest, and MATURE thing to do.
Dwen or Bob or whatever...
I see you are trying to make and effort to have a dialogue rather then your previous namecalling and i respect that you are trying to understand the difference so i will comment on what you posted...
My point is that if we create this idea that we evolved from nothing (regardless of evolution, that is not the argument), but the idea that we evolved from nothing means that we are worth nothing therefore if we evolved from a slug we don't need to understand that life is worth something more then nothing. As for God creating us is that we know that we have a loving creator that wants to have a relationship with us thru his son Jesus Christ and their for we don't need to fall for this idea created by the evil one that Life is worthless.
Calling God a sky fairy does annoy me but it isn't my point to change your mind but if i happen to help adjust you into someone with a bit more compassion then that is a first step, i have noticed from your post that you seem very angry, i don't know if that is from a interaction with christians in your past but i can guarantee that not all christians are evil, some may not follow Jesus and his commandments but most do and alot are misrepresented in the media, so don't judge all by the actions of a few...
I often think of all the millions upon millions who wouldn't have died to a hideous, tortured death, had it not been for atheism. I don't bash atheists for it and make fun of them. I prefer being civil.
Well Dwen,
If anyone was promoting a magical sky fairy with a wand, and if anybody was invoking magic, then you would have a somewhat valid point. But seeing as no one is doing that, you do not have a point, and I see no reason why a Christian should engage in dialogue with you, because we are not saying what you are claiming. I wouldn't go up to a Muslim and say, "Oh don't you feel childish for believing that a giant turtle has created the universe!" Why? (This may be hard for you to understand, I am not sure...) Because Muslims do not believe that a giant turtle created the universe! It would make me look like someone who does not know what he is talking about if I assumed as much, because I would be unable to overcome my own predjudices.
So in the exact same way, I suggest to everyone here not to engage you in dialogue, as we are clearly talking about completely different things, and you are on the wrong blog.
""If we lessen human worth thru evolution,"
So if humans were magically created by a sky fairy, they would be worth more?"
What in your eyes they are worthless, all human life is worlhless, sorry Pal but life isn't worthless even thou you may feel that way...
Don't you have something better to do, or do you just hate yourself so much and are so miserable that you want to make everyone else miserable. I mean come on you went around to all the articles and put in some nonsense about the management of the Christian Post, I mean really come on.
But anyway, i know my creator loves me, even tho you do know want love your life, i feel a great deal of sadness or you that you are so increadibly angry that you must exert that anger on other people...
Well to get back on topic i had a very good conversation with a friend of mine about this very article and what it meant, i discussed with him how i think that when we put animals on the same footing as humans we lessen human worth, that that is what this type of ideal wants to do. If we lessen human worth thru evolution, animal marriages and such we only make less hope for those that are lost. Only in Jesus Christ do we have everylasting salvation and the hope. We are more then just animals we are loved by our creator, we are loved by Jesus Christ.
"http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php
agentorangex, you're a fan of PZ. So am I.
Don't forget to say nice things about the preacher man Jesus, the dead guy who performed magic tricks to prove his daddy is the sky fairy of the entire universe.
The management of the CP is very sensitive. They want everyone to love and worship their invisible friend"
Do you have any idea what you are taking about or are you just so angry at christians that you don't care to have a decent debate....
""to yyyy or bob or what ever..." yyyy was one of at least 4 atheists who were banned. The CP is terrified of atheists. Not just me. They want all atheists to leave.
Slacker, you are a creationist. That's all the evidence I need. Creationists know nothing about evolution. If they understood it, they wouldn't be creationists. Since you don't understand it, you are totally unqualified to say anything about science education.
The "one sided view" you don't like is a pro-science pro-evidence view. The other side you want is your total ignorance of science. Don't expect me to believe that a creationist knows anything about science. Creationists don't even know what science is. "
And you have no idea about a good debate...
Agentorange, my argument wasn't about science education but some how bob turned it into that, i am married to a teaching family, wife, mother in law and sister are all teachers so i understand the one sided teaching that they are required to do. I don't agree with that, as for your contention that we shouldn't teach both sides of an issue, i don't agree with that at all, teach both sides either the cival war, the holocaust or WW2 in general and let the facts speak for themselves, rather then forcing only one side of an argument on unsuspecting kids...
agentorange,
There is a big difference between me dropping a ball and seeing if it does actually fall, I can even see how long it takes and make simple measurements if I am not sure, and testing in a labratory where only scientists can make any judgement. Evolutionary theory and Gravity are not equal, they are not equally testable.
I have said numerous times (it is funny how often I must repeat myself) that evolution is literally of no consequence to my faith. If the proofs you have given me are actual proofs, then what does it mean? NOTHING NOTHING AT ALL, it means you are right, and it means I am right. Either way, I am fully convinced that we did not arise from incredible chance and non-living matter randomly+natural selection. I am fully convinced that God did create us, and that the Bible is literally true.
This post is not, "Atheist debate blog" however, and I am assuming that is the reason so many "atheists" were banned. I am also pretty sure that you can thank your good friend danny for everyone getting banned, his inflammatory remarks and tendency to flag every single person on CP is crazy, and I am sorry if you had to suffer for this, but rather than take it out on CP, why don't you think and take it out on him? He changes names every hour and thus how is the CP supposed to know who he is an who he is not? Many of the atheists who come on here actually are just here to pick a fight. Some aren't, but many are. I don't mind, I enjoy debating, but that is not what this blog is for, and there are many young viewers here that do not need all that garbage. I have been on several atheist blogs and they look like a bunch of this garbage for the most part, well if you want to make fun of Christians and revel in circular arguments then go there, everyone will agree with you. (Not you, but any atheist who is here for that purpose)
To all the decent people,
Ignore or flag any person who is incessantly saying this kind of garbage.
“Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
I'm also very familiar with their evidence: "It's in the Bible."”
yyyy,
You have given me info that supports common decent. That was not my argument. Neither is this the argument of the I.D. camp. Thank you anyway!
“…there is a person currently posting on this site who was recently banned for flagging every single post on the CP.”
Asdfg, zxcvb, aka danny boy?
Dear CP Admin / Christian brothers and sisters,
as some of you may all ready be well aware, there is a person currently posting on this site who was recently banned for flagging every single post on the CP. This person is not worth the time spent writing in contention with. He/she is, however, worth our prayers. Please avoid getting into a discussion with this person, as it will only lead to a temporary shutdown of all posting.
To subject:
You know who you are. There is absolutely nothing terrifying about an atheist or an intellect. Go attend to your poor self esteem elsewhere.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you." - KJV, Mt. 7:6
Chris,
Speaking of testing evolution daily in the labs here is something quite recent....
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063
Slcaker,
Know this first, in Science we teach according to what the evidence supports. In science it’s not logical to teach not supported pet ideas, this goes for any and all things. This is why we don’t equally teach alchemy vs chemistry, or astrology vs astronomy, or flat earth vs round earth. With such well-supported concepts in science it’s a disservice to the student who know nothing about science to being with and can’t distinguish pseudo science from actual evidence based science.
Should we be obliged to teach both sides regarding the holocaust or the cival war? No, we shouldn’t. We have the facts and we know what occurred and so to teach that the Jews weren’t nearly exterminated or that the south won the civil war are wrong, as they aren’t supported.
Having lost in court in Dover in 2005 and having the judge define ID as a reframing of creationism and not being science in any way the ID proponents have gone the route of public relations campaign by resorting to an upcoming movie to give the impression that there is some actual debate about the validity of evolution, when in fact this is false. Some 99.98 of all scientists globally support and accept evolution as a main unifying theory. I’ll cite that if you’d like.
After the lost in Dover, the ID crowd have now moved to ‘teach the controversy’, as if there were controversy with the actual theory itself. To be to sure there are genuine debates based on evidence over ideas within Evolution such as Gradualism or Punctuated E Equilibrium or the very fine lines between mammal like reptiles and mammal like reptiles. But there is not a genuine debate on the theory itself.
Chris333, use some deduction, he's likely in the 18-35 age group, or somewhere near there as this is the largest growing section for non-believers. I don't so how his age is relevant though.
Chris333,
“Also, I do not see how you are certain that there was a massive banning of every atheist”
as you can see by my name changed, I was among the lucky few.
‘Do you see evolution happening every second of every day?”
In labs we do, we see microbial organisms adapting to new antibiotics and evolving as a consequence, this is however only micro-evolution and not a speciation event.
“Can you test it with a near infinite amount of experiments every day?”
The theory/model is tested every day as every day experiments are made, fossils are recovered and analyzed further, genetics are tests and analyzed further.
“And evolution is much more difficult because in order to actually see how it works and be certain that we came from a pile of goo, you must go billions of years back in time! “
DNA is quite literally a living fossil record of all life and changes they’ve undergone in relation to all other forms of life. We don’t need a time machine to go back, the DNA, fossils and other evidence are our time machines on what occurred.
“(The fossil record offers little if any help for evolution and many would agree that it even contradicts evolution).”
Oh really, many? Care to explain these then…
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
to yyyy or bob or what ever...
First off i didn't say that nor was i talking about that, i was saying that teachers should not approach teaching from a one sided view, i said nothing about teaching creationism in school. In fact if you would have read all of what i had posted you would note that i said i do not want creationism taught in schools. Just because someone wants to bring in an even handed discussion does not make it ignorance of a topic as you are showing of yourself. two sided conversations which this not one allows both sides to provide discussion and dialogue. I am making an assumption that you know what dialogue is? So before you misquote me again, read what i said and quote it correctly. I am talking about an even, fair teaching environment in schools today, you for some reason you tolk it as forgoing evolution or science altogether. As for you saying that i am ignorant of biological evolution, that is incorrect as well, i am not as knowledgable as a scientist but i do read and i do understand (opposite of ignorance). My argument is that i want teachers (not just science teachers) but teachers in general to provide a fair, equal and honest teaching environment...
I seriously would like you and others to mind their own business.
I seriously wanted to know how old you are.
"How old are you though?"
There you go again. I'm not interested in being your favorite topic. Have I asked you or anyone else any personal questions? No, I haven't. Unlike you, I mind my own business.
"Slacker, you want to force science teachers to lie about evolution. You want to stick your total ignorance of science into a science class."
"Slacker did not say that, you are falsely accusing him. Stay on topic and stop putting words in other people's mouths."
Chris, are you playing referee now?
I know Slacker didn't say that. I said it. I was honest. Slacker is totally ignorant of biological evolution. He knows nothing about it. He wants to force science teachers to teach his ignorance. Creationists who want to force science teachers to lie to their students are attacking science education and they are nothing less than traitors. I stand by my statement. These are facts.
I can respect a person and have no respect for their god fantasies. If I showed any respect for a delusion I would be lying.
Slacker: "However i do believe that the school shouldn't be weighted only towards an atheistic, one sided teaching environment either."
Evolution is not any more atheistic than gravity. Biologists don't talk about the existence or non-existence of gods when they do their work. Supernatural ideas have absolutely nothing to do with biology or any other branch of science.
"Chris, I refuse to respect your delusions. "
=O) If you can't respect people, then I am done talking to you, you haven't provided a coherent argument anyways. How old are you though?
yyyy,
Slacker did not say that, you are falsely accusing him. Stay on topic and stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Chris, I refuse to respect your delusions.
Slacker, you want to force science teachers to lie about evolution. You want to stick your total ignorance of science into a science class.
I don't have any problem with people who don't understand biological evolution as long as they keep their ignorance in their church. But when they attack science education, like you would like to do Slacker, then they are nothing less than traitors. Their ignorance is no excuse. Creationists can spread all the lies they want, but they will never be allowed to force science teachers to do their lying for them.
Your problems with evolution, Slacker, are only in your head. Biologists accept evolution completely. They have all the fossils and the molecular evidence you know nothing about.
yyyy,
give it a break, everyone here is aware that you have no argument for your position, everyone is aware that you have put all your chips on evolution (and your woship of it).
yyyy,
It is not sensitivity, it is rather common sense and decency man. I do not believe in Buddha, but I do not go up to Buddhists and say, "Haha you fairy believing buddha worshipers!" I don't agree with atheists, but I don't say, "You guys are stupid, the world would be better without you" (As you have said about Christians in the past).
I am all for healthy debate and strong words, I am not for base namecalling and circular arguments. I have held my own, you have dogded nearly everything I said. You take offense faster than anyone else on this post! And for nothing, you even try to find something you can hold against others.
Slacker, was it you? Did you flag my comments?
Chris, do words like abracadabra, hocu pocus, and fairy really bother you that much? Aren't you being a bit sensitive? I didn't call you a fairy. I called the imaginary Christian God a fairy. What did you expect from an atheist? Do you think I should worship your invisible friend? Do you think I should show respect for somebody else's delusion? Come on. This god business is nothing but crazyness to any atheist. Do you respect Zeus? Probably not. So why should I respect the god you believe in? To an atheist, every god is the same as Zeus, a man-made invention.
Chris, I sure hope you were not the person who flagged two of my comments on this thread. If it was you, it would be pointless to respond to anything you say ever again. Why should I waste my time if you're so sensitive you're going to erase everything I write?
Slacker,
Well said.
yyyy,
You do not only disagree with Dawkins, you disagree with almost all of modern biological science.
yyyy,
No I did not flag you, as flabergasting as you are, I don't flag unless it is extreme (usually I like to quote ridiculous things and use them in my own arguments anyways, which I cannot do if they are flagged). That being said, I am sure the person who did flag you had some good reason.
yyyy, evolutionary theory and scientific argumetents should be challenged everyday, it shouldn't be just take it or you are banned from ever having anything to say about science. This should be done especially in school with equally weighted, non biased teachers to help children come to conclusions about life, science and such. if evolution is all that, it should hold up to the tests and scruiteny just fine. As for creation in school, i wouldn't want creation taught in schools because i don't want secular teachers messing up the gospel. However i do believe that the school shouldn't be weighted only towards an atheistic, one sided teaching environment either.
If Dawkins said something about the beginning of life being improbable, I disagree with him.
Chris, I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you were not the person who flagged two of my comments on this thread. However if it was you, please let me know, because then there would be no reason for me to have anything to do with you ever again.
Chris333, before we continue with this conversation, I need to know why two of my comments on this thread were flagged. Did you have anything to do with it? Thanks.
"I would also bet that the entire universe is teeming with life. Life is just chemistry. There's nothing magical about it. Once life gets started, evolution takes over and given enough time virtually anything becomes possible."
Do you realize how many assumptions you have made here? Scientists have not even been able to create new life in a labratory in the most delicate of situations, with pre-existent living material (they are now working on doing this). I simply do not see life sprining up from non-living matter everywhere. The most hostile environments on earth are like a sanctuary compared to the vast majority of the universe. And finally why on earth should some primordial goo have a "desire" to evolve in the first place? You assume that life just takes off wherever it goes and evolves from non-living stuff to human beings every day!
The mathematical probability of zero is for the beginning of life, not life today. Really, what did you think I was talking about? That there would be a mathematical probability of zero for life in Antarctica? Richard Dawkins agrees with contemporary science, and I believe he stated as much in "God delusion" that if a room full of monkeys were typing in a room, given enough time, would produce shakespear (the equivalent probability of zero), but in fact they never would, zero is always zero. You can disagree with him and the rest of the scientific community if you want, but that would be going against everything you have tediously and laboriously offered here.
You called me a fairy-believing lazy individual, and an abracadabra hocu pocus nonsense believing person. You insulted my faith and my intellect, and did so with not a shred of an argument.
"Even you have been very hostile."
Are you joking, can you please explain how hostile I have been? I am not the one saying I am going to kill people who do not mind their own business! What is going on here yyyy?
Chris, on the "Media Spreading Gospel of Godlessness" thread, 2 of my comments were completely erased. The rest of my comments were flagged.
Also, the comments of 3 other atheists were completely erased on the same thread. All 4 of us were banned. Not just me. 4 of us.
Even you have been very hostile.
What's the problem Chris? What's going on here?
"I see that you have completely devolved into namecalling."
Chris, what name did I call you?
"a mathematical probablity of zero"
That couldn't be right. There is life everywhere, even in the worst environments.
"Richard Dawkins agrees that the chances are extemely unlikely"
I don't know if he said that or not. If he did say it, I disagree. Since life is found everywhere, even in the most hostile environments, it seems to me that life can get started rather easily, especially on a planet like this one which has water everywhere.
I would also bet that the entire universe is teeming with life. Life is just chemistry. There's nothing magical about it. Once life gets started, evolution takes over and given enough time virtually anything becomes possible.
The natural world is so much more interesting than the supernatural world imagined by ancient people (and by 21st century people who reject 21st century science).
"but the truth is Christians have no moral values at all. "
You must defend this position, you cannot just state this as if it means something. You must explain. Otherwise it is just another base name-calling.
I see that you have completely devolved into namecalling. Well I'm done, I have better things to do.
yyyy,
Organic matter from comets? where would this organic matter have come from? It is just as crazy to assume this as to say it just came up on the earth? This doesn't solve anything.
Also, the "dust of the Earth" comment is not to mean literal dust, but the materials of the earth, this was supposed to be self-evident and easily inferred.
For that matter, it is just as crazy (I believe a great deal more) to believe that life arose despite a mathematical probablity of zero as it is to say that there was a supernatural designer. Richard Dawkins agrees that the chances are extemely unlikely, he only says that with enough time it could happen. Well I hate to tell him but his math is wrong, zero is zero forever, today tomorrow and in the next billion years.
The first living cells did not form from dust. I haven't kept up with it, but ideas I have heard include life could have developed from organic matter from countless comets that hit the earth when it was very young. Also, life could have begun under the sea near active underwater volcanoes, a process that could still be going on today, but any new life forming today would probably get eaten by life already here.
One thing is for sure, the appearance of the first living cells was not a supernatural event. That idea is too crazy to consider. However, if you want to stick your god of the gaps into the beginning of life gap, nobody will care. Scientists ignore all god-did-it ideas. Instead they do the hard of figuring out what really happened.
You have provided two names, for that matter HampsteadPete has written many offensive posts, as have you.
Also, I have not suggested that God should be in Public schools, I do believe that traditional ideas should be challenged and so I do not see why holes in the evolutionary theory should not be made known in the Public schools, I can only see benefits for students and a fostering of critical thinking....which you seem to be against...perhaps you prefer totalitarianism (no offense just trying to go off of your posts)!
That being said, you entire argument boiled down to, "I have to wonder why you would want to believe in abracadabra hocus pocus nonsense, but I guess everybody has to have a hobby."
BEAUTIFUL! You appearantly cannot rise above namecalling... congratulations you have wasted my time, your time, and everyone who reads this post! My original statement holds and you have not risen above my expectations.
yyyy,
Here is an idea, consider what I say.
Let us just pretend that we did evolve from a pile of goo. What can you say to reject the claim that God has breathed a spirit in us and created us as His special creation? Absolutely nothing! Nothing at all! Evolution doesn't say, "Well we know that since at one point we were monkeys, God NEVER EVER INFLUENCED US!!!!" No it says, "We don't comment on supernatural events, we don't know."
The Bible is not necessarily against evolution, for instance God could very well have created us from animals. The Bible gives a clear process from nothing, to something, to animals, to humans. And the claim is specifically made that God made us from the "dust" of the earth. Well if that is not exactly what evolution says then I do not know what is! But in any case, evolution does not have to be the method, but it could have been. I have no problem with that, and I am not interested in learning everything there is to know about evolution. I can tell you that I find it highly improbable that we evolved from non-living matter and that everything is the by-product of chance (a literal chance of zero mind you). If this is true, then life is utterly meaningless and there are no morals. I have sufficient reason to believe in God, not simply based on an argument from design. Why should I give up my belief over something which does not affect my belief!? you have failed to provide one simple counter argument, you just keeping repeating your belief in evolution as if it matters to the atheist/theist debate! Take time, cool off from your position, and look at things objectively, step back and consider what you have said.
(Name the atheists)
"I have read arguments for both evolution and creation, and at this point I do not have enough information to sway one way or the other."
What part of "why don't you spend some time studying the molecular evidence for evolution" don't you understand?
CP banned and deleted the comments of at least 4 atheists on one thread today. There's no excuse for it. CP owes us an apology. Their behavior was disgraceful.
yyyy,
Here is an idea, consider what I say.
Let us just pretend that we did evolve from a pile of goo. What can you say to reject the claim that God has breathed a spirit in us and created us as His special creation? Absolutely nothing! Nothing at all! Evolution doesn't say, "Well we know that since at one point we were monkeys, God NEVER EVER INFLUENCED US!!!!" No it says, "We don't comment on supernatural events, we don't know."
The Bible is not necessarily against evolution, for instance God could very well have created us from animals. The Bible gives a clear process from nothing, to something, to animals, to humans. And the claim is specifically made that God made us from the "dust" of the earth. Well if that is not exactly what evolution says then I do not know what is! But in any case, evolution does not have to be the method, but it could have been. I have no problem with that, and I am not interested in learning everything there is to know about evolution. I can tell you that I find it highly improbable that we evolved from non-living matter and that everything is the by-product of chance (a literal chance of zero mind you). If this is true, then life is utterly meaningless and there are no morals. I have sufficient reason to believe in God, not simply based on an argument from design. Why should I give up my belief over something which does not affect my belief!? you have failed to provide one simple counter argument, you just keeping repeating your belief in evolution as if it matters to the atheist/theist debate! Take time, cool off from your position, and look at things objectively, step back and consider what you have said.
I have read arguments for both evolution and creation, and at this point I do not have enough information to sway one way or the other. I am not denying evolution, but I am also not embracing it. It is not like you can just say that anyone can learn all of the workings of evolution. Also, seeing as it does not affect my faith, I do not see much point in doing an advanced study of it at this moment (I have enough on my hands already). I don't hear you complaining to me that I should learn quantum physics and that it can be explained on a youtube video, why? Because it is not relevant.
No nobody owns the internet, but people do own posts and blogs and websites. Believe it or not I can go create a website called, "Chris333's Blog" and I can ban anyone I want for any reason I deem necessary. CP has given clear reasons why a person might be banned, and it is general knowledge that this is not a debate forum for atheists, but rather a place where we can share ideas on various topics that are pertinent to the Christian faith. I welcome you on here as well as other atheists, if you would refrain from base mudslinging and excessive circular arguments, but I will not ban you because of how I feel. If CP deems it necessary to do so, then you should respect their decision, they are not squelching you, rather you are bringing it upon yourself.
"Morality bores me to death. I live a good life and that's all I care about. What other people do is boring and none of my business. However, if they stick their nose into my business they are risking their lives. I have no patience with people who make other people's business their business. "
Morality bores you to death because you do not have an argument for it. However this does not excuse you. Unlike evolution, morality is pertinent to human's daily lives and people are suffering and dying as we speak. Your snide and pompous, "Oh it bores me" remark is disgusting (I say this without exagerration). Tell that to the starving child, tell that to the people being tortured now, "Oh it is boring to care about what happens to you". How dare you.
And then you consider yourself as living a good life, but you have given no standard for what is a good life. How on earth do you propose you are living a "good life"? Certainly you do not turn to evolution for answers.
And finally I find your threat that anyone who meddles with your business is risking their lives a bit like a terrorist (no unnecessary offense intended). For instance, if you were say abusing a small girl in your home, and I said, "Hey that is wrong! You cannot do that" And you reply, "Leave me alone, what I do is my business and if you mess with me I will kill you!" Then I would tell you that I do not give a care about what you say or about what you think is your business.
I think you need to completely rethink your moral stance, the more you say the more you are digging your own hole.
"evolution as you have presented it does present a huge problem for my faith, as you equate humans with animals (I reject)"
Did you think we were plants?
Look it, if evolution is a fact (It is a bloody fact), then all living creatures, including our species, developed from other animals. If a creature develops from another animal, it is, guess what, an animal. Not a plant, not a special creation of God, it's just an animal.
Do facts frighten you? Would you reject a fact because it conflicts with your religious indoctrination? I hope not, but it sounds to me that's exactly what you are doing.
Here's an idea. Instead of your wishy-washy "I don't know", why don't you spend some time studying the molecular evidence for evolution. If you study it, and if you are able to understand it, you have to accept it. Now what? Are the religious implications a problem? If there are religious implications, you got to make changes to the religion or throw out the religion. Science will NEVER accommodate any religious belief.
"I honestly do not know"
Then for God's sake study it. How hard can it be to study something that's explained in great detail all over the place including YouTube videos? If I can understand it, anyone can.
Use google and/or YouTube and search for "Chromosome 2".
Read, watch, listen, think. Anyone can do this.
There is absolutely no excuse for "I do not know".
"Also, I do not see how you are certain that there was a massive banning of every atheist."
Unlike creationists I don't make things up. http://tinyurl.com/3aakfl
"you are here on privilege"
Nobody owns the internet, and this is a free country. You act like the Christian Post is doing me a big favor to be able to come here and talk to people who are afraid of the dark.
Morality bores me to death. I live a good life and that's all I care about. What other people do is boring and none of my business. However, if they stick their nose into my business they are risking their lives. I have no patience with people who make other people's business their business.
Also, I do not see how you are certain that there was a massive banning of every atheist. I have only seen three or four atheists here, primarily you and agentorange, and I do not see how you know that all of the atheists were banned. That being said, you are here on privelege, this is a Christian Post not an Atheist debate blog. Keep that in mind.
yyyy,
I have given you fair discussion, and I have stated my points forthrightly. You made the claim that gravity has less evidence than evolution (which I rejected) and that humans and animals are morally equal (which I rejected). It is not that this is not worth discussing, it is that you are not engaging the issues I put forth.
For instance, you have not rejected my claim that eating babies alive is morally wrong, therefore I assume that you find it morally neutral. I propose that this is hideous, and I also submit that on a similar reasoning that you find, rape, murder, child molestation, drunkedness, genocide, torture, and cruelty as morally neutral. Thus Hitler did not do something bad, he just did something. We shouldn't say Hitler was a bad man, only that he had done something. When we object to the KKK we shouldn't tell them they are bad or what they do is evil, we should say, "I don't like what you do, it doesn't make me feel good!" Well I am sorry, you can create your own society which is based only upon science and morals and human integrity is valueless, and I will live in reality and maintain my faith which fits reality.
You bring up Chromosome 2, I have not denied that it presents strong evidence for evolution (I honestly do not know, 50 scientists could tell me it presents strong evidence and I would not know the difference, I am simply not a scientist and therefore I try to only watch with interest and pick up what I can) rather, I have stated that whether or not evolution is true does not matter for my faith. However, evolution as you have presented it does present a huge problem for my faith, as you equate humans with animals (I reject) and you propose that God was not responsible for anything (which I reject).
In short, you have not given a real response to my posts. Do you find rape and genocide as morally neutral? If not then on what basis? Can you provide constant tests for evolution that I can practice in my living room and see with my own eyes (as I can with gravity)? Please answer the questions.
Chris333, today there was a massive banning of virtually every atheist who visits this blog, including myself of course. I don't see the point of you keeping of record of it. Let's keep to the subject we are discussing. If you think I'm a subject worth discussing, I want nothing to do with you.
I use kill and murder interchangeably. The result is the same. The victim dies. Humans trash the planet and murder and kill constantly. The other apes kill and murder rarely and they don't pollute the earth.
"I also find it fascinating that you say we have more evidence for evolution than for gravity."
Perhaps, Chris, instead of complaining about me, you should spend your time trying to understand why human chromosome 2 is powerful evidence for evolution. If you really wanted to prove to me you're not willfully ignorant, you could also investigate, on your own, some of the other molecular evidence for evolution.
The reason I have been writing many comments about human chromosome 2 is because it really is extremely powerful evidence for our relationship with the other apes.
"Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."
"Conclusion: The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming."
Please see the rest of it here:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
This is all over the internet. Biologists understand it at an extreme level of detail. This is one of the reasons why all biologists accept the basic facts of evolution, including our evolutionary relationship with the other Great Ape species.
Ken Miller (biologist and Catholic) explained this evidence at the Dover trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html
It's important to remember this extremely powerful evidence is only a very tiny fraction of the mountains of evidence for evolutionary relationships.
Wait wait, you aren't going to believe this, I just evolved, now without the aid of special sunglasses, when I open my eyes a massive and destructive laser beam shoots forth from my eyes!
(It's just a joke, gotta have fun sometimes hahahaha!)
yyyy/xxxx/danny/first/Bobcu/oldguy,
I like how you said "On the rare occasion chimpanzees KILL others" and then said that humans MURDER each other.
If you are faithful to what you are saying, then the word kill should be used for humans as well. It is not wrong for a "Human-ape" as you call us to eat a "human-ape" baby alive, it is only possibly disadvantageous to society.
I also find it fascinating that you say we have more evidence for evolution than for gravity. I witness gravity every single day, and test it thousands of times a day. I have yet to see an animal evolve into a new animal (still waiting).
In short, I find your position to be hideous, and if this is what atheism offers then I must say it is extremely repugnant.
"Why are humans morally superior to an ape?"
I don't agree humans are morally superior to the other apes. (I say "other apes" because humans are also an ape species.)
The other ape species have been observed in the wild, and thanks to these observations we know the other ape species are altruistic.
On very rare occasions a chimpanzee ape, our closest living non-human relative, has killed another chimpanzee. But this does not happen very often. Chimpanzees are more likely to help each other.
Humans are murdered by other humans constantly, every single day, and genocide still occurs today.
Humans also have been trashing and polluting this planet, and destroying the habitat of other species, for a very long time. Too long. It's got to stop.
Humans morally superior to the other ape species? I don't think so.
By the way, I agree that evolution is in no way comparable to gravity. Evolution has more evidence than gravity. I'm not denying gravity is a fact. I'm just saying that while the evidence for gravity is massive, there is much more evidence for evolutionary relationships. That's why I'm surprised there are still so many people who deny the facts of evolution. The obvious problem is religious beliefs. Faith is so powerful it makes people unable to understand, and not willing to learn.
seedplanter, I gave you the evidence you asked for. Please don't forget to say "thank you".
"The fact is that while I do not argue from the YEC perspective, I do however think that they have come a long way in developing their debate. For you to dismiss them without recourse only reveals a lack of personal initiative to familiarize yourself with their arguments."
I am very familiar with their one claim: "God did it."
I'm also very familiar with their evidence: "It's in the Bible."
"Why don’t you show me the empirical evidence of natural selection and random genetic mutations being responsible for the rise of higher species?"
I did, and thousands of others did thousands of times before.
For your convenience here it is again, this time from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
-------------
Chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle.
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo:
We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
-------------
For more information, please search for "chromosome 2" on google and/or YouTube.
Please understand this evidence is very powerful, but it's only a tiny fraction of the evidence for our relationship with the other Great Ape species. Of course there is also massive evidence for other evolutionary relationships.
xxxx,
Evolution is in no way comparable to gravity. Do you see evolution happening every second of every day? Does it constantly effect your life. Can you test it with a near infinite amount of experiments every day? Can you know anything about evolution outside of a high tech labratory? Absolutely not! Lets see, how much do you know about Quantum Physics? If you do not know everything about Quantum Physics then you are about as dumb as if you did not know gravity. This is what you basically said to me, but you can see it is utterly ridiculous! And evolution is much more difficult because in order to actually see how it works and be certain that we came from a pile of goo, you must go billions of years back in time! (The fossil record offers little if any help for evolution and many would agree that it even contradicts evolution).
Also, I said it devolved into an atheist/evolution blog because the main point of this article and main discussion before was about how animals and humans are treated the same. Here is a question for you, since you do believe that animals and humans are the same. Why are humans morally superior to an ape? In other words why should we view a human "raping" another as worse than an ape doing the same?
yyyy
FYI, evolutionists have decisively refused to debate creationists. It is a bit odd don’t you think?
The fact is that while I do not argue from the YEC perspective, I do however think that they have come a long way in developing their debate. For you to dismiss them without recourse only reveals a lack of personal initiative to familiarize yourself with their arguments.
xxxx: “seedplanter, why don't you explain your total ignorance of science to the National Academy of Sciences. Also, you need to talk to the biologists of MIT and Harvard and explain to them why you know more about biology than they do.”
Why don’t you show me the empirical evidence of natural selection and random genetic mutations being responsible for the rise of higher species? I guess this is why Meta-Darwinists are dissenting. Don’t give me evidence of moths and flies mutating or bills and beaks changing. Micro-evolutionary changes are one thing, but demonstrable proof of the efficacy of Neo-Darwinism is seriously lacking. For me it doesn’t really change anything one way or the other, I just think you need to be a little more honest.
Eat: "By the way are you a broken record on that 2 chromosome thing. We get it!"
You get it? Then you are no longer a creationist?
59innings, Answers In Genesis makes the claim that the earth and the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Scientists, who have all the evidence, have estimated the universe to be at least 14,000,000,000 years old and the earth has been estimated to be about 4,500,000,000 years old. That's what the evidence says.
Compare 6,000 years to 14 billion years. Quite a difference, don't you think so? Somebody here is completely out of their minds and/or extremely dishonest. So who is crazy, the entire scientific community including the top scientists of the world, or the professional liars of Answers In Genesis?
I suggest, when you study scientific evidence, that you make an attempt, on your own, to understand it. You accomplish nothing if you, without thinking, go see what the liars for Jesus say about it.
"he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific."
Yeah. Right. Ken Miller, unlike the dishonest (and crazy) clowns of answersingenesis, is a scientist. He should know what is and isn't science. He's also religious so he should know what intelligent design is - a religious cult.
“That’s the way the designer made it.”
The only answer creationists have to everything is "it was magic".
Boring and pathetic. Creationists refuse to grow up.
59innings, Ken Miller is a Catholic. I doubt that he calls his career atheistic.
The people who work for answersingenesis are extremely dishonest. I'm sure Miller would agree.
I'm sorry. The article is found on www.answersingenesis.org not www.answers.com.
The problem with Dr. Miller in the video is that he presents this "evidence" under assumed assumptions of factual evolutionary processes. Therefore, he draws only one conclusion from his research... that evolution must be true! The fault in his presentation was recently summed up in an article on Answers.com...
"While the evidence for a fusion appears consistent with the evolution model, Dr. Miller implies that it is inconsistent with ID or creation models. He makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: “That’s the way the designer made it.”4 This statement reveals Dr. Miller’s inability to think outside his paradigm. As a creationist who finds chromosomal rearrangements fascinating, I can honestly say I never thought of that possibility. One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns.14 Since chromosome numbers vary within created kinds, it is not in the chromosome number where we should expect the most significant differences to lie, but in the coded information.
Although Ken Miller’s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. Furthermore, he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific.15 He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed. Thus, he is not able to distinguish between science and religious indoctrination."
By the way are you a broken record on that 2 chromosome thing. We get it! So What! your a UTube fan. are you advertising?
To xxxx:
If you are bored, don't care, and are not interested-
What are you doing here?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I'm probably talking to a wall xxxx. But I like science, pure science without theory without error. I keep up with Science online and find it very interesting. Except when they start talking about your god. this god can't be seen it can't be touched like my God. both are real but you most likely will only admit one is real. your god is Time. did you ever realize when reading a paper on Evolutionary science that they always start with millions or billions of Years. all your theory is backed by time without time you could not have evolved, without time you could not have created life. Scientists know this that is why they then set out to find if there is any evidence for an old world. they found that they could not find any substantial information so they Created it, made it up also known as lying.
I am still praying for you,
JC, your babbling is meaningless and boring. Perhaps you would like to comment about the paragraph below. If you don't understand it, go to YouTube and search for "chromosome 2".
The human chromosome pair 2 has a block of telomeres (normally only found at chromosome ends) in the middle, a banding pattern in the two halves of chromosome 2 virtually identical to two respective chromosome pairs present in all of the great apes (which have one more chromosome pair than humans), and banding pattern correspondence between each other human pair and a corresponding great ape pair.
"We know God in an intimate and personal way."
Boring. I don't care about your invisible friend. I'm not interested in your fantasies.
You know nothing about biological evolution. All you know about is your medieval beliefs in supernatural magic. You could educate yourself, but even if you weren't too lazy to study science, I doubt you could understand any of it.
To xxxx:
Dear one, so confused and lost. I am not afraid of biological evolution anymore than I am afraid of the boogeyman, as I know both don't exist except in fairytales.
Let me ask you another question "xxxx", did you grow up with any brothers and sisters in your household? If so, let me tell you that they truly don't exist except in your mind.
That doesn't hold much water does it?
Well, you are attempting to bring the same argument here. We know God in an intimate and personal way. He has made Himself so real to us as we have sought Him. And now, you want to tell me that He doesn't exist except in our own minds.
And you expect that to hold water too?
Therefore, dear one, as has always been the case, the burden of proof is actually on you, not us as you have so desired. It's easy to shift the burden of proof when one doesn't believe in the answers that were given.
As far as the complete breakdown of this society that I mentioned. You will notice that I prefaced that remark with the statement, "For those with ears to hear". You obviously have not ears to hear, or you wound have understood this. For this, you must seek His wisdom, for we cannot grant ears to hear, only He can. If you want an explanation for this, I would humbly suggest that you seek it from Him.
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Checkmate!
wilderness, if you spent as much time researching biology as you spend researching me, you would be an evolution expert.
JC: "a complete breakdown of this society"
Is this why you are so afraid of biological evolution? Do you really think biology equals a complete breakdown of this society? I noticed biologists are not trying to break down the society they live in. Perhaps you are just looking for an excuse to not study biological evolution.
A few comments ago on this thread I said "I have never in my life known anybody more lazy and more afraid of education than the creationists.” Nothing since then has changed my mind. I have seen no evidence for any creationist here wanting to learn something.
I earlier suggested that creationists here should get on YouTube and search for "Chromosome 2". How many creationists have done this? Zero. The creationists just don't care. They like their medieval fantasy world, and they are not going to let education interfere with their delusions. It's much safer and much easier to remain ignorant and not think. That's what Christianity is all about, the fear and complete rejection of thinking and science education.
"Scientists cannot, with any amount of certainty, tell us where this planets origins came from, let alone the rest of the solar system."
That's not true. Scientists have an excellent understanding about how stars and planets and moons form, a process that continues today all over the universe.
Do you know how our planet and our moon formed? You should look it up. It's one of the most interesting discoveries of science.
Why did you bring this up? Planet formation has nothing to do with biological evolution. Biologists will be learning more about biological evolution forever, but what they already know is amazing. Even more amazing there are still some non-scientists who deny the facts of evolution, despite the powerful and rapidly growing evidence for it. Biologists are no longer trying to prove evolution because it's been considered a fact for more than a century, but every new discovery adds to the growing mountain of evidence for it.
"this has devolved to an evolution/athiest post"
Like gravity, evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods. Like gravity, biological evolution is just science.
Since the topic of this thread is "Equating Animals with Humans", evolution is not off-topic.
"I can say that I do not know if evolution is true..."
Would you say the same thing about gravity?
This sounds dumb: "I can say that I do not know if gravity is true"
This isn't any better: "I can say that I do not know if evolution is true"
"In any case, the evolution/creation debate is of no consequence."
There is NO debate about it in the scientific community. All biologists reject magical creation. All biologists accept evolution.
Outside the science community there is a debate about it because some non-scientists don't want to educate themselves. This is disgraceful, but it would be no problem if the creationists kept their anti-science ideas out of our schools. Unfortunately the liars for Jesus are constantly trying to force science teachers to do their lying for them. These attacks on science education most certainly have consequences, very negative consequences.
"evolutionists have admitted that the big bang theory wasn't correct"
They're called biologists, not evolutionists. Biology is not Cosmology, but I doubt there's very many scientists from any branch of science who has a problem with the Big Bang. You're making things up, also known as lying.
Chris333 was right, this has devolved to an evolution/athiest post. So, as long as it has sunk to this low, let's see if we can plug the leak.
Let's look at the facts again, but this time, let's look at the most underlying fact that people seem to have forgotten.
Fact - Scientists cannot, with any amount of certainty, tell us where this planets origins came from, let alone the rest of the solar system. They can guess, and they have theories, but they can't positively tell anybody how the planet came into existence. They look at the rest of this existence and hypothesize. The trouble with this particular hypothesis is one is forfeiting the basic law of this existence: For everything, there is a beginning. Meaning, before there was something, there had to be nothing. Nothing can't produce something, without intervention.
Therefore, logically, this would lead one to conclude that these well accredited and distinguished scientists of the scientific community, are in reality only working with partial facts to begin with. If they could definitively tell us, with all shred of doubt being erased, then maybe they would have something to stand on. But, they can't.
It's amazing on how much has been piled on this simple underlying fact, that it has been completely forgotten and draped over by the academic centers of this nation.
For those with ears to hear.
Unfortunately, the fruit of this will be a complete breakdown of this society, as one who has rejected and abandoned truth, for other false, more palatable gods. If He abandoned His chosen nation Israel for such things, how much for us? However, make no mistake beloved, He will never abandon His Bride!
xxxx,
Finally! Congratulations you have given a coherent post. And not one reference to magic.
That being said, I did not spend three posts on you, I spent one post apologizing, and two posts defending my postion.
Regarding your assumption that I did not respond to you, well I did. I don't know if you bothered to read it or not, but I did. It was the post at 3:33 (no I did not plan it, but it does make me happy).
I can say that I do not know if evolution is true, because I am not a scientist and there is enough confusion within the scientific community (if not about whether it happened or not, but how it happened). I am a lay person, and am in no way qualified to say, "Yes evolution most certainly happened" or "No, I know for a fact that evolution did not happen" I will leave that up to scientists and those challenging the popular idea. In the meantime, I do know that either way, nothing is at stake for Christians. Either the creation account in Genesis is representative and not literal (as in the days refer to longer time periods) or it is exact and each day is one literal day (this position is actually impossible as there was no sun to differentiate between days for the first days). As for what I do know, human beings are distinct from animals, and God breathed a soul/spirit into us. And He made us in His image. (Evolution does not contradict this).
In any case, the evolution/creation debate is of no consequence. I am happy that there are I.D. proponents because I believe all things should be challenged, whether they are of the scientific field or the theological field.
Again I would like to applaud you on a decent post, and welcome any decent response.
Chris 333,
Good responses to xxxx. Have faith though, evolutionists have admitted that the big bang theory wasn't correct so maybe there is hope that they will eventually come full circle to the truth. Remeber the scripture that states that a man that thinks of himself to something when he is nothing deceives his own self. Galatians 6:3
By the way, anyone can get on YouTube and search for "chromosome 2". They will find several videos that explain it, so there's no excuse for not understanding this stuff.
It can't be said often enough - creationists are willfully ignorant. I have never in my life known anybody more lazy and more afraid of education than the creationists. I have never been proven wrong about their laziness and their fear of science, and I strongly doubt I ever will be proven wrong.
Chris, you spent 3 comments talking about me, as if I was an important subject, but you said nothing about the paragraph below. This is typical of Christians. When the subject is science, they only want to talk about people. Christians prefer to talk about people because they want to avoid talking about something they don't understand, scientific facts.
The human chromosome pair 2 has a block of telomeres (normally only found at chromosome ends) in the middle, a banding pattern in the two halves of chromosome 2 virtually identical to two respective chromosome pairs present in all of the great apes (which have one more chromosome pair than humans), and banding pattern correspondence between each other human pair and a corresponding great ape pair.
"either the Christians who reject Evolution are wrong and they have misinterpreted the Bible, or the Scientists are wrong and they have wrongly interpreted the evidence."
Well, which is it? Do you completely accept the fact that humans developed from other animals, or not?
"I don't know" is not a very good answer. "No" is also not a very good answer. The above paragraph, which is a very short explanation of one of the many smoking-gun proofs of evolution, is accepted by ALL of the top scientists of the world.
What I'm looking for here is the creationists who have been lying about evolution need to admit they are not smarter than the world's top scientists, and they need to admit they have been wrong all their lives. If they have enough sense to accept reality, I will congratulate them. Unfortunately it's not going to happen. The constant lying about science is never going to end on this blog. There is some commandment about lying being wrong, but for Christians dishonesty is OK if the lying is for Jesus.
A final point xxxx,
You do not deserve an explanation of my position, but so that you can stop whining, Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. There is only one of two possible problems, either the Christians who reject Evolution are wrong and they have misinterpreted the Bible, or the Scientists are wrong and they have wrongly interpreted the evidence. Either way, Christianity is untouched and there is nothing contradictory. You will need to do better now than screaming, "Magic!" your argument is not even circular anymore, it is only mockery and as such is valuless.
"if you are so afraid of viewpoints that disagree with your strange medieval beliefs, why don't you stay away from the internet? I noticed you prefer to insult people (10 year old) instead of defending your belief in magic. I'm not surprised. Christians have no moral values, and they have no evidence for their delusions, so they insult people who disagree with them. "
You must be joking, didn't you say this to me at least 10 times already? And haven't I given you an explanation each time? And didn't you either devolve to saying, "Magic, magic, its all magic and you believe in magic" or else not respond everytime?
But now you are playing the part of a martyr (even though you self martyred yourself) and expecting sympathy (atheism amazes me sometimes...) Well I am sorry xxxx, if somebody actually wrongly attacked you then you deserve pity, but when you provoke it and make fun of others' beliefs, you deserve absolutely nothing. Nobody here goes around saying, "Atheism is stupid, I can't believe how dumb you atheists are, you guys are a disgrace to the human race" but this is exactly what you say about us. If you can act like an adult then we can talk and reason like adults.
xxxx,
I'm sorry, I should have given you time to defend yourself. I am only frustrated by a lack of coherent argument ever coming from you, and 10-year old-like namecalling that is always coming from you. I have no problem with healthy critiicism, I have a huge problem with namecalling and mudslinging. I am willing to engage anyone in an actual discussion. I have tried numerous times to do so with you, and it has proven futile every single time. Prove me wrong.
Who wants to explain why the following paragraph is not lead-pipe evidence for our close relationship with the other Great Apes? Every biologist in the world agrees this evidence shows beyond any doubt evolution is a fact. I challenge the creationists here to explain why thousands of biologists are wrong, including the top scientists of the world.
The human chromosome pair 2 has a block of telomeres (normally only found at chromosome ends) in the middle, a banding pattern in the two halves of chromosome 2 virtually identical to two respective chromosome pairs present in all of the great apes (which have one more chromosome pair than humans), and banding pattern correspondence between each other human pair and a corresponding great ape pair.
Creationists, don't be afraid to admit you have been wrong all your life. You will get nothing but praise from me if you are willing to accept reality. If you refuse to give up your Dark Ages ideas, scientists will laugh at you for the rest of your lives.
Chris333, if you are so afraid of viewpoints that disagree with your strange medieval beliefs, why don't you stay away from the internet? I noticed you prefer to insult people (10 year old) instead of defending your belief in magic. I'm not surprised. Christians have no moral values, and they have no evidence for their delusions, so they insult people who disagree with them.
Chris333, wild dreams about evolution?
You need to explain to the top scientists of the world why you are so much smarter than them.
I'm still waiting for your apology. You and the other everything-is-magic creationists also need to apologize to the entire scientific community for insulting their integrity.
seedplanter, why don't you explain your total ignorance of science to the National Academy of Sciences. Also, you need to talk to the biologists of MIT and Harvard and explain to them why you know more about biology than they do.
Chris333, 10 year old? You owe me an apology.
Oh great, this has devolved in ahteists evolution page...
xxxx (oldguy/Danny1/Danny2/Bob/10 year old)
This is not the place to post wild dreams about evolution and rantings against the Bible with circular arguments. There are other places for making circular arguments and illogical rantings, namely an atheist blog.
JC and Strider,
Points well taken, I will look into it more and possibly change my position on this! Thanks for the posts.
Correction:
Common Descent (as purportedly proven via DNA) does not demonstrate the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations magically producing higher taxa.
Common Descent (as purportedly proven via DNA) does not demonstrate the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations.
I'm glad to see you are aware of scientific discoveries as recently as 1858. However, this is 2008.
Do you know how scientists test for paternity in humans? The same method is used to test for evolutionary relationships. Do you know how that's done? Do you know how Neil Shubin was able to predict where he could find the fossils he was looking for? His prediction was correct. He found exactly what he was looking for on a remote Canadian island near the Arctic Circle. It was named tiktaalik roseae and it was your ancestor from 375 million years ago. It was a transitional animal between fish and land animals.
"most notable was Thomas Edison Christian."
Thomas Edison [1847-1931] American inventor
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
"I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."
"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk."
“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul. . . . I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven? . . . . No; nature made us--nature did it all--not the gods of the religions.” The New York Times, Oct. 2, 1910
"O ya chimps brains are not the same as humans they're smaller. and if they're so smart show me their computers, their I-pods, their Empire State buildings."
Yes, the human brain is larger. However the structure of the chimpanzee brain and the human brain is exactly the same, which supports the idea these two species are closely related. Despite our larger brain, tests have shown the chimps to have a better short term memory than humans.
"I do not believe in a magician I believe in an all powerful God."
What's the difference? Both perform magic tricks.
Hey xxxx,
I am sorry for you. Number one, I do not believe in a magician I believe in an all powerful God. number two, I think that Evolution is an insult to science. Remember that it was only till the Bible was widely printed that science progressed. Christian beliefs, that are based upon the bible do away with superstitions, and false beliefs. examples of some false beliefs are that of spontaneous generation, done away with by Louis Pasture and his famous bottle experiment. He was a Christian. this S. G. was a form of evolution done away with early on because of it's problems toward Science. this was in 1858. right after the printing of the Gutenberg Bible and such reform. we got rid of astrology early on with Galileo 1602, Kepler 1609, and Edmund Haley 1687. during and after the protestant reformation 1400-1600. All of these me believed in God. most notable was Thomas Edison Christian. there must be some thing with God and Science. the bible says in Genesis that we are to subdue the Earth. lastly I must ask you to think think of nothing. Now something. where did it come from? O ya chimps brains are not the same as humans there smaller. and if there so smart show me their computers, their I-pods, their Empire State buildings. and then show me your Brain Washers.
I'll Pray for you,
xxxx are you oldguy/first/danny2/danny/bob? You sure sound like you are.
Eat, I'm still waiting for your evidence for magical creation.
strider, OK, you believe it all. Please give my compliments to your brainwashers. They were very effective.
Eat, we have more in common with chimpanzees than any other animal. For example the structure of the chimp brain and human brain is identical. The only difference is our brain evolved to become larger. Please understand we did not evolve from chimps. Both chimps and humans evolved differently and both are descended from the same common ancestor.
Your claim about the evidence I gave you being evidence for a common magician is an insult to the entire scientific community. You owe them an apology. It's interesting to me that Christians who don't even know how to spell science think they are qualified to make scientific claims that conflict with evidence from the hard work of the top scientists in the world. It's like somebody who knows nothing about brain surgery telling a brain surgeon how to do his job.
I'm with you on that, Strider
XXXX: No, there isn't. I believe it all. I believe the nonsense of an infinite, yet personal God who made us in his image, which gives me an infinite reference point for everything that's finite.
I believe in the nonsense of the Trinity, that God is one God in three persons who existed in a loving relationship for all eternity and that gives me a basis for human community, as well as the basis for an answer to the age-old question of the One and Many.
I believe in the nonsense that God originally created the world good and sin brought misery, sickness, and destruction, and that gives me a basis for seeing the world as so beautiful yet so messed up.
I believe in the nonesense of God so loving a lost and fallen world that He gave His Son to pay the penalty for our sins, and that gives me a basis for serving even those who are not worthy because I was not worthy of His service to me.
I believe in the nonsense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that gives me a basis for believing that the good I do here and now will have everlasting meaning and I will have everlasting life.
Yes, xxxx, I believe all the nonsense of the Bible.
did you ever see an animal turn to another animal? Or animal to human? I am so sorry your Chromosomes prove a common designer. a human eye is closest to an Octopuses eye did you know that. now did you with your evolutionary programing ever think to put that in. maybe we descended from octopuses. O no. busted!
"All Dogs go to heaven". thats allot of Dogs. some people Eat dogs and some people Eat horses. some were pets, some were not. do they go to heaven? what about rats? there is allot of rats that are pets will they be in heaven. I have lots of pets Three dogs, two parrots, Gold fish, rabbits, and a turtle and I love them all but I will not see them in heaven. finally I believe that there is a distinct difference between animals and humans. ( Daniel 4:31-33) I am sure you are familiar with it. Nebuchadnezzar becomes like an animal. losing his mind and becoming uncouth with no hygiene and mindless like an ox and he could not communicate ( like we are now). God made animals for man and man was made by God for God and in his image.
strider: "If God can make the very rocks cry out in cheering (Luke 19:40)..."
Luke 19:40: "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
Stones crying out? strider, is there any nonsense in the Bible you don't believe?
Eat: "you were fashioned by evolution do you have any evidence."
Yeah, I do. Tons of it. Here's one of thousands of examples. It's evidence we share a common ancestor (not a common designer) with chimpanzees and the other Great Ape species.
The human chromosome pair 2 has a block of telomeres (normally only found at chromosome ends) in the middle, a banding pattern in the two halves of chromosome 2 virtually identical to two respective chromosome pairs present in all of the great apes (which have one more chromosome pair than humans), and banding pattern correspondence between each other human pair and a corresponding great ape pair.
What evidence do you have, Eat, for magical creation? (besides your wishful thinking, your holy book, and your total ignorance of science)
or were you just guessing.
you were fashioned by evolution do you have any evidence.
"We were fashioned by the hand of God." Do you have any evidence, or are you just guessing?
To oldguy:
Dear one, what a lonely and abandoned existence you must feel. To think that you have no hope but to just live a life on a planet of rock and dirt, and then to die only to become part of that rock and dirt. So lonely and alone.
It doesn't have to be this way. You say that you don't believe in Him, but yet, here you are, at a Christian website.
Beloved, these facts that you speak of, how far are you willing to walk with them? What I mean is this. Are you so sure about these facts that you have, that you are willing to deny the possibility of an eternal existence filled with an unspeakable joy, as if joy itself was something tangible that you could actually wrap yourself in. Are you willing to walk with these facts far enough to actually deny yourself the possibility of never being in need or want, surrounded with the most intense love that one could possibly feel. Dear one, are you willing to walk with these facts, to your grave even?
How far are you willing to walk?
Beloved, just ask yourself this one question. What if we are right?
It's a simple but honest question, one that merits some consideration. Are you willing to trade all that for the world's religion of evolution, which is only theory, bearing no fruit but division?
I hope not, dear one, I pray that God opens your eyes and heart to Him and His ways.
While there are some very compelling arguments here concerning whether the animals have a distinctive soul as humans do, there seems to be one thing that is forgotten.
Animals, as well as all creation, were spoken into existence. All creations except one, humans. We were fashioned by the hand of God. There was a distinctive and purposeful difference in creation styles between humans and the rest of creation as we know it.
Also, when the Bible tells us that we should seek the lost, no where are animals implied.
In reality, they have no need of redemption as they are without sin. If they are to join us in Heaven, there is no need for us to pray. They will be there.
Beloved, I don't believe it wrong to pray for an animals welfare. If it is sick and dying, and you pray for it to be healed, there is nothing wrong with this. By doing so, one is only tending creation while knowing their limitations. Some things rest in only His hands.
Christians believe that humans on earth are God's most favorite creatures in the massive universe. They believe people were magically created to be separate from the rest of nature. They believe people and only people have an invisible soul that flies up to heaven when the body drops dead.
Do they have any evidence for their childish wild claims? No. Nothing. They don't have one shred of evidence for any of their insane beliefs. It's all wishful thinking by people who are afraid of the dark.
Here's some facts. The soul is an invention. There are no souls. Humans are not special creatures who were magically created to be separate from other animals. All life is related and all creatures living today, including humans, developed from other species. There is absolutely nothing that makes humans different from the rest of life. Humans are just animals. Every species has evolved to be able to survive in the environment it lives in. Every species, including the human ape species, is better in some way than other animals. We have a larger brain, but other animals have advantages we don't have. Humans are not the big deal they think they are.
Chris: I agree that people can go to one extreme or another regarding animals. Reacting to the extreme of equating animals to humans, Christians can go to the opposite extreme of adamantly denying that the animals of this creation have no future in the new creation. How can they be so sure? One doesn't have to equate animals to humans in order for them to have a place in the new creation any more than one has to equate the two for animals to have a place in this creation. Yes, no one has eternal life without believing in Christ. But we must not forget that the creation (which includes animals) "anticipates the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay" (Rom. 8:21). God made us, along with the animals, to inhabit this creation. You say that God didn't make the animals to have a relationship with him. But didn't God make a covenant with the animals (Genesis 9:8-12) and doesn't a covenant imply a relationship? To be sure, it's not a conscious relationship like humans have with God. But they were made to glorify God and God delights in them. He pronounced them 'good' at the creation. All of this is to say that I think we can tell a child that there's a good possibility that he (or she) will one day see his pet without saying it just to make him feel better. He will see his pet not because the pet believed; but because the child believes in Jesus....the very Jesus who "died to reconcile everything to himself" (Col. 1:20).
Danno and Strider,
I believe some of the confusion is coming in the idea of "soul" versus "spirit" and the interchangeability of the two terms. But regardless of this, there comes to a point where it is just perhaps "silly" is the right word? For instance, praying for the "soul" of your pet dog... I cannot see any biblical reason why we should believe that animals go to heaven (I suppose I could be wrong, but a prayer for a pet seems like something we might do for our children to help ease the pain, but not in any seriousness) Nonetheless, it is stated that there is no one who enters heaven without belief in Christ. It is nearly assured that no animal can believe in Christ.
This being said, I think that the major problem lies in equating animals with humans. Animals are not equal to humans in any way. God created humans with the expressed purpose of a relationship with them, He did not create animals for such a purpose, but rather that people would rule over them. My problem is that people are going to start baptizing animals and taking them to Church. Someone on this post has already claimed that animals and people are morally equal.
I've always respected Mr. Colson's sharp mind, and for this reason I'm surprised he is getting hung up on the platonic idea of animals "having" souls. The Hebrew for soul (nephesh) is used of animals in Genesis 1 just as it is used of humans. Animals are living souls. They don't have souls. We also are living souls. The distinction between us and animals is not one of having a soul but in being made in the image of God. Resurrection has nothing to do with having a soul. It has everything to do with the power of God to raise the dead. If God can make the very rocks cry out in cheering (Luke 19:40) then he can certainly raise animals from the dead. This reflects a truly biblical theology of creation and not a platonic one. Paul said that all creation is groaning for the liberation of the children of God in Romans 8, because our liberation will mean the liberation of the creation. I assume this means existing animals. John Calvin and Matthew Henry held such a view. On what basis does Mr. Colson say that animals on the new creation will be new animals and not the present ones resurrected? Does Revelation 21:5 say, 'I will make all things new" or "I will make all new things?" It says "all things new." If the people population will come from this present creation, why won't the animal population come from this present creation? Mr. Colson's views show he is still held captive to Platonic and Cartesian views, like much of Christianity is, rather than letting the Bible inform their theology.
Chris,
From my perspective Mr. Colson presented an arguement, which 1 denied that animals have souls, and 2 people can go too far in their focus on animals.
1. As stated in my earlier post Matthew 8:28-34 I think opens the possibility animals have souls.
2. Romans 1:21-23 points out the falicy of losing our focus on God.
John Marcus Doe,
Who are you talking to? And what contradictions are you referring to?
Word Star,
I just realized what you said, and I am horrified. Yes the alzheimers patient is morally equal to a Nobel prize winner, because they are both human beings. Are you saying that you would have difficulty deciding between saving the life of a chicken or a child? What are you saying? Suppose you had to choose between saving two dogs and one child, would you say, "Well dogs are morally equal to children, so since there are two dogs they are more important than the one child"? Do you understand the craziness of what you have said!? In what way is an animal morally equivalent to a human being?
Oh are you serious. What a load of b.s? First you proclaim that animals are created by "God" and now you are stating that they have no soul? Please, this is the 21st century if you have not noticed. People are not dumb as you think they are. And would you please stop foolishly bashing Evolutionary science with out even reading a single bit about. Trust me, I have read the Bible several times, and I rather not comment about it. So many people would be christians right now, if only it never contradicted itself over and over and over and over and over again
It appears to be just one more sign of the success of an aggressive animal-rights movement—one that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. And even some Christians are being unwittingly pulled into their orbit.
I agree; People call other people 'dogs' based on their lack of being faithful. A human does not have the nature of animals. We have a greater mind than they. We are able to control or dominate our environment. When we become animals, we trade the glory God gave us for something less. God make animals good. He made man very good. God's standard of very good is higher than man's.
I too have read Matthew Scully's book Dominion - There is a huge dispartity between stewardship of animals and cramming them into tiny cages by the billions - I think the obvious horrors of todays factory farms as opposed to guardianship can be illustrated at the dairies -
Female cows today produce 10 times more milk than 20 years ago - yet her calf feeds but for a few hours and then is taken away..... Either removed for immediate slaughter - or placed in a veal crate. This is blashamy -
As far as the distinction of affections correctly felt to one's pet as opposed to animals raised and slaughtered for "food"..... Sorry, my heart's too big to eliminate the suffering of farm animals because they are a different species than my cat or dog..... This "big heart" also forbids me to treat my fellow man poorly if he is black, or Mexican, or Arab, etc......
My family has been vegetarian/vegan for years - We are quite healthy eating the grains and seed bearing fruits we have been provided. Statistically, we should live 5 - 8 years longer than our omnivore counterparts..... With a much sounder mind and spirit too I suppose.
The next thing you know, they will be saying that plants go to heaven too, and then next will be minerals...
Danno,
You have made a lot of really heavy theological claims, I am going to need to see some support for your position.
All I can say is, animals need to be taken care of, they need to be treated in a kind manner, but they are in no way remotely equal to humans. Are we going to start baptizing animals now? Are we going to start preaching to animals (they would need a saving faith in Christ as well)? Let us not be ridiculous.
For that matter any person who believes themself to be a Christian and tortures animals, or treats them poorly needlessly is not a Christian, unless they repent and change their ways.
I don't think the Bible tells us that God's image is the only image with a soul. Matthew 8:28-34 says demons possessing two men left the men on Jesus' command and with Jesus' permission entered into the swine. I don't think it answers the question "do animals have souls" but I think this event raises the possibility. Demons possess the souls of people. When they entered the swine wouldn't it follow they possessed the swines soul? Anything that takes focus off God is idolitry. If an animal is a major focus in someones life I think they have taken it too far. Because of the swine event in Matthew I think my pets will meet me in Heaven. However, my hope is in God. Even my relatives who will be there to meet me will have to take a backseat to God who will be the focus of our mutual worship. God has created all things and will provide all things in Heaven. Maybe that means pets, maybe not, but I see no harm in wishing it as long as our focus is on God.
I have a few comments:
Matthew Scully, Christian conservative and former chief White House speechwriter holds a very different view from Mr. Colson and has some wonderful articles about what scripture says about our treatment of animals, at his website: http://www.matthewscully.com
Here's an excerpt about factory farms:
"Corporate farmers hardly speak anymore of "raising" animals, with the modicum of personal care that word implies. Animals are "grown" now, like so many crops. Barns somewhere along the way became "intensive confinement facilities" and the inhabitants mere "production units."
"The result is a world in which billions of birds, cows, pigs, and other creatures are locked away, enduring miseries they do not deserve, for our convenience and pleasure. We belittle the activists with their radical agenda, scarcely noticing the radical cruelty they seek to redress."
"Here's a link to the full article:
http://www.matthewscully.com/fear_factories.htm
Additionally, I don't know of any serious philosopher who holds the view Colson says. Serious philosophers argue that humans and other animals are _morally equal_ in the same way that Alzheimers' patients and Nobel Prize winners are morally equal. But there is a big difference between saying that Alzheimers' patients are morally equal to Nobel Prize winners, and that they are equal in every other way.
When we say "morally" equal, we do not mean anything like equal intelligence, talent, beauty, skill, strength, etc. We mean only "equal morally"! An Alzheimer's patient and a genius are both morally equal.
And a question to ask Colson: If animals don't have souls as Mr. Colson claims, then that seems a good reason not to make their life here on earth into a living hell. If they don't have an afterlife, then we shouldn't make the only life they DO have miserable.
HaTool correction: meant to say "Colson ENCOURAGES his readers to close their eyes. Sorry.
This is not the first time Colson has registered his fear of Christians having too much compassion for animals. G....forbid allowing animals to live free from terror, pain and exploitation by the fabulous human beings, whose rights extend to legal animal abuse in industrial and institutionalized torture of animals for the benefit of the self-indulged, self-righteous,comfort-driven religious population. Most animal advocates/activists don't dress up animals like humans, and consider this practice silly, but they do strive to give animals the life they deserve, free from the harsh hand of man/womankind. Biblical quotes haven't helped any animal yet, and obviously, Colson discourages his readers to close their eyes to the immense suffering inflicted upon animals by people, and to consider themselves above the moral obligation to care for all creatures of our planet. This attitude is responsible for the large extent of acceptance for using animals as "things", for any purpose imaginable which would benefit a human being. Eyes are being opened to this betrayal to animals, no thanks to the religious community.
As a vet student, I agree for the most part but also believe that we should care for all of God's creation. Not affording constitutional rights to pigs, but providing for their care, comfort, and a humane slaughter. Chickens raised for eggs or meat should still be provided with adequate space, shelter, food and water. This does not mean that we're raising animals to the moral standards of humans, but that we recognize them as creatures of God and care for them as such. God created the earth and the animals for our purposes, but we are responsible for their care and should do so as humanely as possible. Being a Christian should not imply that we are above treating animals ethically.