As a Christian, I believe that God created humans to be superior and above all animals [Genesis], even angels; and because of this human life is precious.

Humans did not come from the same primordial muck that all other animals came from as evolutionists and alot of scientists will have you believe.


My question is to evolutionists, agnostics, atheists, perhaps non-Christians, who avidly call in to question Christian beliefs, and seem to be active on the "Christian" threads:

If you believe that humans are like other animals [a bunch of chemicals and molecules],
is the daily slaughter of cows [ which probably ranges in the thousands ] worse than the 32 dead in one day at Virginia Tech ?


If you answer 'no' then why?






Grace and Peace

Starman

It is just as crackpotish to say that these same people you have never met would be swayed by evolution and you don't seem to have a problem with that. About being dead, Darwin, the guy who came up with this crackpot idea is dead and it doesn't faze you one bit as far as giving him and his other dead evolutionists cronies credibility.

About, DNA, coding it only becomes wordplay when it indicates creative MIND behind nature. In all other cases such a code is considered solid evidence of guiding mind. In fact, SETI accepts patterns which are infinitely less complex as evidence of mind and you have absolutely no trouble with that.


Flaws? There are as many as there are atheistic evolutionists who refuse to acknowledge. In fact, when they are presented with these flaws they already know that they can't accept them because that would mean that there is a God and they can't tolerate that idea in there lives. It's just like when atheistic evolutiuonists find modern human remains in the wrong strata.


BTW
The same atheists who can't see beyond their noses when it comes to perceiving mind behind the infinite complexities of nature are the very atheists who would immediately accept a simple arrowhead as evidence of a guiding planning mind. And there is where they err since accepting their double standards requires that I join in with their self-contradictory charade, by placing my mind on hold and which I and others like me are unwilling to do.

Capuchin

Chuck, you could tell me why you were unsatisfied with my answer in post #9, I was satisfied with it.

If you just mock me instead of pointing out where you are unsatisfied, then you will not get a satisfying answer.

inthebox

Capuchin:

I accept alot of "provable science," for example, the law of gravity.
I don't accept evolution as a "provable" explanation for why we are here or how we got here.

We can both see that from Christian to non- Christian there is a wide range and degrees of belief.


I take no offense to the questions, that's why I purposefully posed the question the way I did.



Grace and Peace

ebaines

Father - go back and check - I did answer the cow question, and posed one of my own.

Capuchin

Starman, you are the one using these scientists as your evidence, apparently you have run out of scientists born after darwin who believe in creation. I have plenty of scientists who are alive today, I don't need dead ones who had never heard of evolution to prove my point (which I have not done, you notice, because it is a bad argument).

There have been patterns found by seti. They have been put down as an anomaly, not indicative of intelligent life.

Have you heard of the infinite monkey theorem? I don't think you need monkeys for that to work, you only need a random computer. A computer, randomly producing letters, given enough time, could type the entire works of shakespeare.

Those works of shakespeare were not written by intelligence, yet if i gave you the print out, you would assume it was.

What is your explanation here?

Capuchin

Inthebox, to us scientists, the evidence for evolution is as convincing as the evidence for gravity. We don't believe that either is provable, because we are always willing to change our theories in light of new evidence. They give valid predictions, but they are not provable.

Starman

Majority of scientific opinion=truth
Atheistic evolution is the majority scientific opinion
Atheistic evolution= truth

The problem in using that kind of premise is that one contrary example demolishes it.
And, since in this a case in which there are thousands of possible examples to the contrary, using it as evidence is a serious mistake and does more harm than good to your argument.

About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a beginning. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific. As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewriter analogy if we are to be logically consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simple minds would tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines.


A computer needs someone to program it. So it itself needs a creator. Where is its power source coming from? Suppose it gets unplugged or there is a power outage? These things are relevant since this particular computer has to keep at it. Who will replace it's moving parts when they start to wear out? But even if ut did plow ahead because of being supernaturally gifted, then we would have to accept that the universe is as simple as words on a page--which all scientists agree that it is not.

BTW

The pattern SETI rejects are rejected because they show no evidence of intelligent source. The patterns we see in nature, and in DNA specifically do. If SETI were to receive such a complex pattern, it would immediately announce it as being from an intelligent source. However, if that same pattern is shown to them in a living organism they would claim mindlessness. That's why I consider their opinion nonsensical.

inthebox

IMHO animal cruelty laws are Biblically consistent - treat others with respect, love, kindness, even those below your station in life- there are references to the treatment of slaves that, in that time, were radical.

God gave us dominion, which entails good stewardship.

What are societal norms based on ?

Some may argue that in the dog-fighting culture, the kind of cruelty that Michael Vick is accused of is nothing to get all upset about.

Btw - I currently have a Boxer, pomeranian, and a rot / lab mutt - I would not stand for anyone hurting them.



Grace and Peace

Capuchin

Okay, have you been drinking? Let's go through this one by one.

The premise that you are using is that a small minority of scientists do not believe evolution, therefore evolution is rubbish. That's the argument that you seem to use most, and by your own logic here, we can see that it's not a solid evidence. I have never used the fact that a majority of scientists believe in evolution as evidence for evolution, I have merely used it to show that your argument is wrong.

"About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a begining. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific."
I said enough time. Not infinite. The time needed is not infinite.

"As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewirter analogy if we are to be logicall;y consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simpole minds whould tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines."
I said nothing about monkeys and typewriters, i'm talking about a computer. You obviously need a nap or to sober up . You know that these are also just nitpicky arguments. There is a flaw in my argument that I was expecting you to pick up on, but it seems I hold too much faith in you.

jillianleab

So, back to the original question....

inthebox you appear to have a misconception that many people do about atheists, that we lack morals or don't experience guilt. It's a common way of thinking because to you, you have someone to answer to in the end, so you want to behave (I'm simplifying a bit here). I don't have someone to answer to, so why should I care about my behavior? Thinking that way supposes a lack of morals and no capacity for guilt or remorse. Sure our morals might be different, but that doesn't mean I don't have them, especially the principle ones like how it's not nice to kill people.

People and animals are just bunches of chemicals and molecules and flesh and water and goo, but they still aren't the same. People are far more sophisticated than animals. A cow can't think "bridge" and build it; a human can. A monkey can think "bridge" and build it (sort of), but a monkey can't think "spread my knowledge of bridge building to other monkeys the world over so we all have bridges" and do it; a human can. Besides, monkeys still throw poo, and that's just yucky! So in a way I agree with ebaines on killing intelligent creatures - no matter how smart a cow is, it's still dumber than the dumbest person. And before someone tries to run with that, no, it's not right to kill dumb people either (well.... maybe some.... ). They are people, that makes them "off limits".

To go further (and maybe a bit off topic), you mention those who "call into question Christian beliefs", what beliefs are you specifically talking about? I think when you talk about things like murder and theft atheists will agree with you that those things are wrong. We differ the most with your belief in a god, which is not unique to Christianity. Christians are also against abortion and homosexuality and while personally I'm not, I'm sure there are atheists out there who are. So really the only thing across the board that I can think of that every atheist and every Christian disagree on is the existence of a god (and in turn heaven and hell, afterlife, etc). Belief in god is a tenant of Christianity and certainly a prerequisite to being a Christian, but there are other beliefs. You might relate them to god (murder is wrong because the bible says so), but an atheist can still think murder or abortion or homosexuality or whatever other Christian belief is wrong for society. It's like how you say you believe science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive; neither is atheism and morality.