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 also have a question for you, if you accept most of science, why do you not accept evolution? Only because it goes against your faith? If so, then what are you basing your belief in the rest of science on?
That's an accusation that you cast my way as well and is totally baseless. Why must you constantly portray believers in God as ignoramuses who believe things merely on blind faith? That kind of argument, is fallacious, direspectful, and doesn't get your point accross very well. Why not instead respectfully accept that there are intelligent people, scientists who have credentials with which your own might pale, people who believe in God because they are more convinced by the evidence AGAINST godless evolution then by the evidence which is presented to support it?
Just as a reminder, here is a [tiresome] list of scientists who believed in a creator and many of whom didn't see any sense in abiogenesis.
THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
From Y1K to Y2K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by David F. Coppedge
c. 2000 David F. Coppedge, Master Plan Productions
Table of Contents
“O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.” – Psalm 104:24
“The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” – Psalm 111:2
INTRODUCTION
Everyday life in 1000 A.D.
What this study can do for you
Some clarifications
The Origins of Science: Contrasting World Views
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF MODERN SCIENCE
The Medieval Philosophers: Hugh, Ockham, Oresme
Robert Grosseteste – Nature is knowable
Roger Bacon – Experiment is the key
Leonardo da Vinci – Master of all trades
Sir Francis Bacon – Pathfinder to truth relies on God’s word
Johannes Kepler – Thinking God’s thoughts after Him
Galileo Galilei – Enemy not of Biblical truth, but of human tradition
William Harvey – Surgeon to King James reveals secrets of the circulatory system
SCIENCE TAKES OFF IN ALL DIRECTIONS
Blaise Pascal – The short-lived genius, passionate for Christ Jesus
Robert Boyle – Leading experimenter leaves a legacy to fight skepticism
Sir Isaac Newton – Left the universe a different place, in answer to prayer
Antony van Leeuwenhoek – The shop merchant in awe of God’s tiny creatures
Carolus Linnaeus – Organizer of the Genesis kinds
William Herschel – An undevout astronomer must be mad
John Herschel – All scientific findings confirm Scripture
Samuel F. B. Morse – What hath God wrought!
“NATURAL PHILOSOPHY” REACHES ITS ZENITH
Michael Faraday – World’s greatest experimental physicist, a humble, Bible-believing Christian
Charles Babbage – Father of the computer defends the Scripture
James Prescott Joule – Father of thermodynamics does science to ponder God’s wisdom
Lord Kelvin – Eminent physicist/professor takes on Darwin and his bulldog
James Clerk Maxwell – Christian creation scientist par excellence
Bonus! Maxwell poetry set to a new, original melody: “A Student’s Evening Hymn”
Great Christian Mathematicians: John Napier, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann
Gregor Mendel – The monk whose gene laws Darwinists had to obey
Louis Pasteur – World’s greatest biologist opposes evolutionism
Joseph Lister: Compassionate Quaker saves millions of lives
The Anti-Evolutionists: Not just Bible-believers opposed Darwin’s ideas
Honorable Mentions in Life Sciences: Ray, Hooke, Bell, Simpson, Fabre
Henrietta Swan Leavitt – The gentle Christian lady PhD who measured the universe
George Washington Carver – Obedience to the Genesis mandate saves the South
Wernher von Braun – World’s greatest rocket scientist defends Genesis
James Irwin – The Apollo astronaut who took the Bible to the moon
THE RESURRECTION OF CREATION SCIENCE
A. E. Wilder-Smith –Triple-PhD chemist pioneers intelligent design reasoning
Raymond V. Damadian –Creationist revolutionizes diagnostic medicine
Henry M. Morris – Father of the modern scientific creationism movement
Duane Gish: The man the Darwinist debaters feared most
Stephen A. Austin: Bringing Genesis back to the real world
Richard D. Lumsden – Scientism can’t save the scientist’s soul.....
Science, the child prodigy of the church gone prodigal; will it come home to the Father?
What accusation? I have not accused anyone of anything here Starman. I have laid out what I believe, which is exactly what inthebox was asking.
A large number of the people you list here were born way before the theory of evolution was even in its infancy. How is that possibly proof that they believed in the "evidence against evolution" or not believing in abiogenesis?
Science was, naturally, at the very beginning, a way of understanding God's wonder. Over time though, it has been discovered that God is not needed to explain these "miracles". Of course this revelation has split people, but it has led us to our present time where the vast majority of educated scientists believe in evolution as opposed to a special creation. I have never ever stated that people who believe in creation are stupid. I have on several occasions complimented people like inthebox and Morganite for their thoughtful responses to my posts. I wish more creationsists were like them, because then we could have a proper discussion, which is exactly what I had hoped this thread would be, before you barged in expressing offence and a copy-paste to something that I did not say.
As I have stated before, a lot of people believe that there is evidence that abiogenesis is possible without divine intervention, the evidence at the present time is not solid, and open to interpretation, but very many scientists believe that it's nothing like an impossibility.
Now, may we carry on talking about humans and cows?
InTheBox: let me turn your question around on you - if you believe that man was given absolute dominion over animals by God, then it should follow that animal cruelty laws are bunk - is that right? After all, shouldn't a man be able to treat animals in any way he chooses? Here in the US a famous football player is `currently in trouble for sponsoring dog fighting (Michael Vick) - would you argue that man's dominion means Michael Vick has a God-given right to mistreat dogs as he sees fit, and hence should not be prosecuted?
Personally I am a Christian who believes in evolution, because it explains the facts of the physical world better than any other explanation to date. That does not mean that a man murdering a man is the same as a man killing a cow. The fundamental difference is in the level of intelligence of the victim (so yes, killing a dolphin or chimp in my opinion is more significant than killing, say, a house fly), and in the understanding that without laws against murder we would be living in a totally lawless society, and that would be a bad thing for all of us. Societal norms is what allows humans to live together in peace.
Saying that someone accepts things on blind faith is saying that the person is literally brain dead ignoramus who doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on. Which might be true in some cases but not in reference to people who reject evolution based on its flaws. Such people have a solid scientific foundation upon which they base their beliefs.
The scientists who reject abiogenesis and evolution do so because they see it as unscientific and not because of blind faith. That is the point. Would some among those early scientists accept evolution? I doubt it. They would listen the creationist scientist's arguments which point out the flaws in the theory showing it to be unscientific and they would join their ranks.
BTW
Wonder how the DNA coded itself? Isn't code supposed to be evidence of mind? Not when it comes to admitting that there is a God. And there is the great flaw of atheism.
Also, Darwin reached the conclusions he did because he had not of the evidence available to us today. That's why his idea has had to have many modifications--because it was flawed to begin with.
InTheBox: let me turn your question around on you - if you believe that man was given absolute dominion over animals by God, then it should follow that animal cruelty laws are bunk - is that right? After all, shouldn't a man be able to treat animals in any way he chooses? Here in the US a famous football player is `currently in trouble for sponsoring dog fighting (Michael Vick) - would you argue that man's dominion means Michael Vick has a God-given right to mistreat dogs as he sees fit, and hence should not be prosecuted?
Personally I am a Christian who believes in evolution, because it explains the facts of the physical world better than any other explanation to date. That does not mean that a man murdering a man is the same as a man killing a cow. The fundamental difference is in the level of intelligence of the victim (so yes, killing a dolphin or chimp in my opinion is more significant than killing, say, a house fly), and in the understanding that without laws against murder we would be living in a totally lawless society, and that would be a bad thing for all of us. Societal norms is what allows humans to live together in peace.
Calling Jesus an ignorant liar, and being Christian is supposed to be incompatible. At least to my knowledge it is.
In response to your comment, the only way you can call Jesus misguided and a liar in reference to creation and still believe yourself a Christian is to write your own Bible. and set up your own particular religion which has NOTHING to do with what Jesus since being a Christian requires that we respect his teachings and obviosly you have your own.
Episcopalians believe that the Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.
Episcopalians believe that the Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.
I am not denying that there are people calling themselves Christians while they are discrediting the scriptures which Jesus tells them are God's Word and truth. This claiming to be Christian while attacking clear Bible teaching has a long tradition going back before Darwin came up with his idea. The Bible refers to it as the apostasy.
BTW
Why call yourself a follower of Christ if you believed him to be spreading lies on how mankind got here by telling people that the Genesis account is historical fact? Or is it that you haven't read the Gospels and are unaware that Jesus considered Genesis, including the Genesis account historical fact?
Wouldn't that be the same as I believing that Mohammed was spreading lies and then calling myself a Moslem. Or believing Buddha to have been misguided and calling myself a Buddhist
Saying that someone accepts things on blind faith is saying that the person is literally brain dead ignoramus who doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on. Which might be true in some cases but not in reference to people who reject evolution based on its flaws. Such people have a solid scientific foundation upon which they base their beliefs.
The scientists who reject abiogenesis and evolution do so because they see it as unscientific and not because of blind faith. That is the point. Would some among those early scientists accept evolution? I doubt it. They would listen the creationist scientist's arguments which point out the flaws in the theory showing it to be unscientific and they would join their ranks.
BTW
Wonder how the DNA coded itself? Isn't code supposed to be evidence of mind? Not when it comes to admitting that there is a God. And there is the great flaw of atheism.
People in this thread said that they have no solid evidence for god's existence, yet still believe in him. This is the definition of blind faith, they have admitted to it. I don't think they are stupid for believing in him and having blind faith, yet you obviously do, hence your comment. (I don't think I ever used the term blind faith).
You don't see that maybe proclaiming that you know what some dead people who you had never met would have thought if they had been presented with the evidence for and "against" evolution might make you seem a little crackpotish, Starman? Also, I don't think that saying "Most of the scientists who would believe in what I believe are dead" is a very good way to get your point across either. (Even if it were true, which nobody can say, because there is zero evidence).
I don't believe you have pointed out a single flaw in evolutionary theory that stands up to even the most cursory analysis that I give it.
About DNA "coding". I don't think that wordplay is a valid "great flaw of atheism".
Linear Mode
