At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
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 ?
I fail to see your problem inthebox. Cows are different to humans, just not in such an absolute sense as you believe. They're still different though.
Yes there's nothing special about humans, except that they are our own species. Elephants grieve when a member of their herd dies, but give very little consequence to killing humans and other animals. It's a natural thing to be able to sympathise with your own species plight more than any other species.
My question to you is why is human life more important than any other species?
What value system is that based on?
Because if God did not create us, and humans are "nothing special" what is the big deal about Virginia Tech? Does evolution or science explain compassion or empathy.
Putting on my cold, emotionless, just the facts hat and vulcan ears:
I would say "who cares about cows," we are predator and they are prey .
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 beginning. 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 simple minds would 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.
I can't drink alcoholic beverages due to my health. I am not sleepy I am wide awake.
Or do you believe that just because I don't share your unshakable belief in a theory that has more holes in it then there are on Noriega''s moonlike facia-buffa I must be drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated? That is childish and isn't worthy of a man who claims to go by pure logic and who is sensitive to anything which smacks of personal attacks himself--no?
You did say infinite amount of time but now shift. However, mathematical calculations indicate that the time available for the complexities you believed happened are impossible.
BTW
Now you are resorting to personal attacks which brings the conversation to a conclusion. I have much more important things to do then read rantings a ravings about magical ideas which are equivalent to Mother Goose and Father Rooster stories told to young children.
So, as I said once, I will go my way, you go yours and everyone is happy.
Well, lets go back a page and find out... oh here it is... "given enough time".
It doesn't say infinite to me.
I accused you of being asleep or maybe drunk because you failed to address a single one of my points sensibly, and it even seemed that you were making fun of me when i had asked you a serious question. If you were not drunk or sleepy then I apologise, you must have simply been mocking me.
Thank you for editing your post after I had replied to it. That is not a very nice thing to do in a discussion is it?
Again with the computer points you are nitpicking. The point of the computer is that it's producing random characters, like random molecules bouncing around in a primordial soup. You still havent reached the flaw that I have expected you to.
As for the SETI thing, they have dismissed it because they have scanned the same point in the sky many times and never got a similar result. While it is unlikely to have been from experimental noise, that is the only conclusion to draw, because the unlikely happens.
As for these mathematical calculations indicating that abiogenesis is impossible, I have provided a counter argument based on mathematics, but you refused to comment on them, remember?
Again we end our discussion because only one side wants an adult discussion, the other side is only here to win.
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.
Appreciate your reply.
Great point : atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. I do not mean to imply non-Christians are amoral or immoral.
I see science as not having anything to do with morality, just facts.
If one does not believe in a God, where does morality come from?
NK put it very well; your sense of morality comes from your surroundings. That also explains why it changes over time. Remember, it used to be totally normal to own slaves and beat them because you felt like it. It used to be immoral for women to wear pants, or work outside the home in but a few professions. These things change and they have nothing to do with the bible. I'm not saying the bible can't instill good values into a person, but it also has the potential to do harm if taken literally or not applied to today's standards.
I've posted this question many times before, because I think it illustrates my point quite well; if you suddenly stopped believing in god, would you kill your neighbor because his dog pooed on your lawn? Take jail out of the equation; if you could kill your neighbor and you would never get in trouble, would you do it? For society's sake, I hope not. For society's sake, I hope there is more than the fear of god and jail keeping you from killing your neighbor, or anyone else.
My question to you is why is human life more important than any other species?
Hello in:
It has nothing to do with importance or value. It has to do with our ability to ranch and feed ourselves. I don't think I'm any better than the leaf of lettuce I consume. I am, however, glad that I can eat IT, and that IT can't eat me.
I'm sure if cows could ranch us, they would and there wouldn't be any value judgments in that either.
My life is the most important thing to me.
Should I eat an ugly cow, or a marauding head of lettuce?
The lettuce was alive, too.
Or should we be sanctimonious and just not eat.
Don't wanna kill anything...
Our spec on this habitable bit of isolation, in a universe so vast, most can't even conceive our own mortality.
The cow wouldn't be here if we didn't help it. The lettuce woudn't be here if we didn't cultivate it.
We're all ameobi, just multi-celled. Lucky for us, for now.
Well, lets go back a page and find out... oh here it is... "given enough time".
It doesn't say infinite to me.
I accused you of being asleep or maybe drunk because you failed to address a single one of my points sensibly, and it even seemed that you were making fun of me when i had asked you a serious question. If you were not drunk or sleepy then I apologise, you must have simply been mocking me.
Thank you for editing your post after I had replied to it. That is not a very nice thing to do in a discussion is it?
Again with the computer points you are nitpicking. The point of the computer is that it's producing random characters, like random molecules bouncing around in a primordial soup. You still havent reached the flaw that I have expected you to.
As for the SETI thing, they have dismissed it because they have scanned the same point in the sky many times and never got a similar result. While it is unlikely to have been from experimental noise, that is the only conclusion to draw, because the unlikely happens.
As for these mathematical calculations indicating that abiogenesis is impossible, I have provided a counter argument based on mathematics, but you refused to comment on them, remember?
Again we end our discussion because only one side wants an adult discussion, the other side is only here to win.
Onto the Cows!
You misunderstood my SETI example.
Also, I wasn't mocking you. I was simply pointing out what I consider relevant factors which affect the example you provided. If we propose monkeys hammering on a typewriter then monkeys will be monkeys. If they break the machine then that's to be expected since that's what monkeys will eventually do. If you find this weird, then tell me just what kink of monkeys you are referring to and why I shouldn't hold you to your choice of a scenario. Your choice mind you-not mine.
Here is more info on the typewriter example:
Quote:
Excerpt:
Assuming a 50-key typewriter to accommodate letters, numbers, and punctuation, the chance of typing “THE” is one in 50 x 50 x 50 (50-3), or one in 125,000. At a rate of one strike per second this would take 34.72 hours. For the phrase “THE LORD” the chance becomes 50-8 and requires 1,238,663.7 years. The entire Psalm requires 9.552 x 101016 years to complete on average. The age of the universe is only 15 billion years according to evolutionists, so the probability is clearly outside of the realm of possibility. (It is possible that the event can happen at any given point in the trials, but the difference in time needed and time allowed is unreasonable.)
When considering the probability of the assembly of a DNA molecule, the same problems arise. Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biophysics at Yale, has calculated that the formation of one E. coli bacteria in the universe at 10-100,000,000,000, or one in 10 to the power of 100 billion. Sir Fred Hoyle has offered the analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747, “nonsense of a high order” in his words. Natural selection cannot be the mechanism that caused life to form from matter as it can only work on a complete living organism....
Another major problem with the probability argument is that the chemical processes that supposedly formed life are also reversible at every step. As water is released in the formation of amino acids, the water is then available to break the bond in the reverse reaction, which is actually more favorable. Oceans are the last place amino acids would form. Huxley’s typewriters would have to include a delete key for each other key in order for the analogy to be complete. No matter how much time and matter was available or the rate of interactions of atoms, the probability remains zero for the reversible reactions involved.
About post editing, please be advised that I edit so grant me at least 15 minutes before responding. If a new point comes up just address it in your next commentary via editing yourself. So you see, there is really no disadvantage.
Linear Mode
