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 a lot 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?:confused:






Grace and Peace

First, I would ask that you correct yourself in saying that humans are above the angels. They are not. Humans are above the creatures of the earth and sea and air. That is in Genesis.

The other part of your post, I cannot address, as I am one of those who believe while God created man in His own image, there definitely has been some evolution to the being called man. Just look at prehistoric man and modern man.

However I do believe in evolution, and I have been in a Catholic family and I have been one since birth, cows may have similar characteristics or molecular structures as humans, but there is a big difference between a farm animal and a human being. So no, I don't agree. The slaughter at Virginia Tech is FAR different than the killing of cows, if one human, God, perhaps, can create the earth in seven days, I would certainly like to see a cow try and create something other than a burger. The lives that were lost at Virginia Tech could've been something great, so I would change my "theory" of humans not coming from the same "primordial muck" in which you speak of.

It is difficult to compare cows to humans and especially with the masacre at Vriginia Tech. I do not think you would find even a hard core evolutionist who would say that humans and cows are on the same level here. You are asking for an extremely unfair comparison.

And if human life is so precious, then why are you comparing it to animals who are "below"
Us? I think that you are contradicting yourself there.

I agree with shygrneyzs, cows are certainly not on the same "level" as humans, bluntly they are two very different creatures.

What sort of mixed up logic is this? God gave humans animals for food, so the death of cattle is not to be compare with the death of humans.

Appreciate the replies.

I believe in God, and most of what science tells us. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

BUT

I don't believe in what science tells us about the origins of life, that is evolution;
and science's implication that there is no afterlife or there is no God, because, we Christians, don't have "scientific proof."

Why would an evolutionist or an agnostic scientist value human life over that of a cow?
They tell us that humans are from the same "tree" as monkeys, cows, etc..





Grace and Peace

inthebox you say that you are a christian so I take it that you belief the bible, don't worry about what science say, yes science can't proof that there is a God, but we as christians by faith know that there is. This is my opinion

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.

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 across 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

Honorable Mentions in Physical Science: Copernicus, Brahe, Flamsteed, Davy, Dalton, Henry, Fleming

SHINING THROUGH MATERIALISTIC DARKNESS

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.

Regarding Christians who believe in evolution, please see:

Science, Technology and Faith (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm)

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.

Regarding Christians who believe in evolution, please see:

Science, Technology and Faith (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm)

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".

It is fun how they try to switch the question, change the topic, but never will address directly the cow issue

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".

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.

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.

Capuchin:

I accept a lot 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

It is fun how they try to switch the question, change the topic, but never will address directly the cow issue

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

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?

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, 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?

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: 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.

In my opinion 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.:mad:



Grace and Peace

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

The proiblen in using that kind of premise is that one contray example demolishes it.
And, since in thisa case theire are thousands of possible examples to the contrary, using it as evidence is a sderious mistake and does more harm than good to your argument.

About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a begining. 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 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.

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.

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?:confused:

Grace and Peace

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.

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 .:)


GRace and Peace

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.

BYE!

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 haven't 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!

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.


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?




Grace and Peace

If one does not believe in a God, where does morality come from?
From your upbringing, from your sense of community, from your respect for your fellow man regardless of colour, religion or nationality.

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 ancestors are not ameobas.

XenoSapien

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.

excon

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 want to 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 haven't 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:




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.

Chapter 5: The Origin of Life - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life)]



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.

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.

I thought you were finished here... -_-

I don't see how telling me that I misunderstood it will change the situation, do you?

And again, I didn't mention monkeys.

As for your AiG quote. Why do they assume one letter per second? Doesn't that seem exteremely slow for a planet with billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of atoms (this is an underestimate), each whizzing around at speeds on the order of several kilometers per second? I would say that there would be several billion collisions in each nanosecond, as an underestimate.

Morowitz is one of the leading thinkers on abiogenesis, no doubt this number quoted here is his thoughts on the chance of life arising by chance. He believes that abiogenesis would be guided by the laws of nature, i.e. not by chance.

Sir Fred fails to have any mention of natural selection, It would be similar to a tornado going through a junkyard and any piece which fell into the right place would stay there. You could see that given a fairly small amount of time, we could expect to get a boeing, especially if we have billions of billions of junkyards and tornados.

Both of the examples are dealing with random chance, and do not take natural selection into account, and then the article states that from these examples they deem natural selection to be unreasonable... Seems a little illogical to me.

As for the reaction with water being more favorable than the reaction liberating water: The formation of bonds requires energy, the release of bonds releases energy, This is BASIC chemistry. The release of energy is far more favorable.

My ancestors are not ameobas.

XenoSapien

Of course they're not, both ameobas and yourself share a common ancestor, but the ameoba is not your own ancestor.

Thank you for pointing out this often misunderstood evolutionary fact. I'm glad you agree.

My ancestors are not ameobas.

XenoSapien

Would you be willing to consider the possibility that your ancestors may have been Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons? If not - are you willing to at least accept the fact that these hominids even existed?

I thought you were finished here... -_-

I don't see how telling me that I misunderstood it will change the situation, do you?

And again, I didn't mention monkeys.

I'm surprised you should require mention of Natural Selection since it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.


Excerpt:


Natural Selection

Natural selection is the natural process in which the fittest in a group of offspring survive to pass on their heritable traits to subsequent generations while those less fit die off leaving no offspring and thereby terminating the traits characterizing the less fit organism.

Natural Selection (http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Natural_Selection)



A billion tornadoes ripping into things will leave behind a titanic pile of junk. A universal tornado would perhaps assemble but then immediately disassembled via its mindless wind. In short, there are destructive forces art work which mitigate against the scenario you propose. Increasing the velocity and number of tornadoes only increases the destructive power.

About monkeys, the principle is the same and doesn't interfere with your proposed scenario. The scenario however, is flawed since it requires the creation of an alphabet, a typewriter and that requires intelligence. Same applies to the computer example which humans would program systematically try combinations of letters. Since abiogenesis requires mindlessness, the introduction of a creative mind providing both alphabet, typewriter, computer and programming into the analogy makes it false.

Here is another scientist who disagrees with you based on scientific principles:

Excerpt



Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

Acknowledgements: I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. and John Woodmorappe, M.A. for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)



BTW

The only reason I quote scientists is because you seem to feel that scientific opiniuon carries great weight. Since that is your opinion I quote scientists. It isn't because I need scientists to tell me what I already know via logic.

Actually, the true condundrum here, and one which you repeatedly fail to address is why you prefer mindless forces as an explanation for things which clearly indicate mind? Such a refusal makes atheists appear fanatically inclined and unwilling to reasonb simply because they are unwilling to reason and nothing more. If indeed you are as sceitnifically minded as you claim, then why are you ignoring the scientific method or refusing to apply it here, while quite willing to apply it to such things as an arrowehead, or even a piece of rock which might show evidence of a few scratches indicating--to you in that particular instant, intelligent manipulastion. Why should I, or anyone else take an atheist seriously when he so flagrantly biased and inconsistent?

I shant bother with the monkey thing anymore, since you seem to fail to understand what an analogy is.

By natural selection in this case, I mean the selection by natural forces, not the reproductive selection.

One "conundrum" which you repeatedly fail to address is why you prefer a force which we have no evidence for to ones which we do.

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for a God. Therefore, in science, God cannot exist until we do find evidence. It is NOT scientifically sound to invent another force that there is no evidence for just because we don't yet have enough evidence to explain it using the forces that we do have evidence for. Most scientists, including myself, don't agree that life indicates design, there is no refusal to apply the scientific method.

2000 years ago, it was fine for them to apply human value to non human things. At this stage in scientific progress, we don't have that liberty.

A billion killed for human pleasure
I think that is very wrong and disturbing that we humans support and rely on big buildings that smell of death in which lines of dumb creatures are murdured.

I shant bother with the monkey thing anymore, since you seem to fail to understand what an analogy is.

By natural selection in this case, I mean the selection by natural forces, not the reproductive selection.

One "conundrum" which you repeatedly fail to address is why you prefer a force which we have no evidence for to ones which we do.

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for a God. Therefore, in science, God cannot exist until we do find evidence. It is NOT scientifically sound to invent another force that there is no evidence for just because we don't yet have enough evidence to explain it using the forces that we do have evidence for. Most scientists, including myself, 2000 years ago, it was fine for them to apply human value to non human things. At this stage in scientific progress, we don't have that liberty.

I am very cognizant of what an analogy is and my acing the course on logic demonstrated it to everyone's satisfaction. So your accusation of ignorance simply doesn't apply in this particular case. What you are proposing are analogies which are flawed--false analogies which have features so inconsistent with the thing you are comparing them to as to make them nonsensical.

The term Natural Selection is reserved for organisms. Not once have I come across the term applied to the supposed abiogenesis. Natural processes, would have been less controversial; and less misleading.

As for evidence, you are arguing against your own rhetorical fantasies and attributing them to me. Is that all you have? The constant misrepresentation of another person's argument in order to evade the need to face what the issue really is? What a waste!

Actually, the more atheists refuse to reason the more Fra Chuck's recent opinion about those who can't see what's plainly in front of their noses makes sense to me. Evidence is exactly where atheists err by being inconsistent in their application of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You can twist turn gyrate evade, boogie woog or otherwise somersault evasively all you wish. but the fact remains that you people apply your criteria very selectively so selectively in fact that it becomes ridiculously obvious that bias is in operation here--a bias which you people wish others not to see because you say so. Unfortunately, your modus operandi itself speaks volumes, more so your refusal to answer straight questions by shifting from one fallacious atheistic foot to another making the whole conversation, if indeed this is what it is--useless.

Much better for you case to leave comments as they are and not create straw men. Why? Because by evading and creating straw men you raise the strong suspicion that from a logic viewpoint you don't have a leg to stand on. Now I'm sure that's not the impression you are striving to make, but your antics are counterproductive and I think it should be brought to your attention so that we can discuss this in an adult way. Otherwise what's the point?

BTW

Making a contrary statement doesn't constitute a rebuttal of an issue based on logic.
It is only a droning monotonous repetition of "I don't agree because I don't agree because...."

In short, you are turning an otherwise viable discussion into a childish game of "Is! Is not! Is! Is not! Is! Ad infinitum.

Sorry that my analogy was not as strictly defined as you needed it to be, I had thought that one as intelligent as you would have been able to make the connection and see what I was talking about. Apparently not so.

It all boils down to this: You believe that life is obviously designed. I believe that life does not indicate design.

I wish more people would open their eyes to science. The scientific universe is so much bigger than the tiny world that god supposedly created for us.

Starman, I'd like your opinion on what's so special about Earth?

Cal, I think you are missing my question.

Why did God choose Earth to put life on? What's special about Earth?

God created earth to put life on.
He wouldn't create earth and make it suitable for us, and then dump us on jupiter.

How do you mean "suitable for us"? He hadn't made us yet, right? He made all the other planets too, right?

It says in the bible that he knew every one of us, down to the hairs on our heads, before we were even made.
And there are obviously reasons he created us as carbon based and oxygen breathing, also we were made in his own image. Meaning we would have to look like him, and such we would be made in this way, because such an image would be most suited to this kind of environment in my opinion.
Also, please do not make me invoke the words "god works in mysterious ways"

The reasons for us being carbon based and oxygen breathing (from a creationist stance) are not obvious to me.

Well, if we were silicon based, and methane breathing, we would look very different.
And as such, we would not be in gods image.
Also, gods reasoning and gods plan is far beyond our comphrehension. I woulndt bother trying to work out gods reasons, because he probably has more reasons and more details in his plan than there are brain cells in the world to comprehend it.

sorry that my analogy was not as strictly defined as you needed it to be, I had thought that one as intelligent as you would have been able to make the connection and see what I was talking about. Apparently not so.

It all boils down to this: You believe that life is obviously designed. I believe that life does not indicate design.

I wish more people would open their eyes to science. The scientific universe is so much bigger than the tiny world that god supposedly created for us.

Starman, I'd like your opinion on what's so special about Earth?

Will your interminable and ineffective strawman barrages never cease?
I reject science? Naaa! I love and respect science. What I do reject, however, is quackery disguised as science which is exactly what mindless evolution and abiogenesis is.


So now the universe is tiny because God created it? That's an excellent example of unadulterated balderdash.

You are still hiding timidly behind a barricade of ill concealed strawmen arguments. Why not summon up some courage, shake off the willy nillies, boldly emerge from behind the diaphanous vales of silliness and confront your fears?

Again:

Why does a simple arrowhead convince you that it had to have an intelligent maker, a mind to produce it while you vehemently refuse to acknowledge the NEED for intelligence behind the design of the human brain which is billions of times more complex than any computer man has been able to make? Why do you acknowledge that a simple code must have intelligence as its source [SETI]-then blatantly turn around and deny that the DNA code which is infinitely more complex has an intelligence behind it? Do you think that this double standard evinces confidence in your sincerity and fairness of approach to the issue? Inconsistency of this kind only serves to cast doubt on your approach and makes you appear fanatical--and fanaticism is a very flimsy basis for a belief.

DNA Molecule (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/dna-molecule.htm)


Analogies:

If you want your analogies to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest you make them cogent. Examine them and remove all discrepancies which might make them fallacious.
Otherwise they will be invariably dismissed as inapplicable.

Excerpt


A false analogy is an unjustified inference drawn on the basis of similarities between two items or types of items. The justification of an inference based on analogical reasoning depends on the number and strength of known similarities and dissimilarities of the items being compared. If there are very few known similarities or if there are a few known very great dissimilarities, then drawing inferences based on the comparison is unjustified. The result is a false analogy.

false analogy (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ9ot8dGw2UB1h1rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11oa962s0/EXP=1187580136/**http%3a//skepdic.com/falseanalogy.html)



Here is an article about the earth and how it is unique:
The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html)

You seem to think that complexity indicates design. I see complexity in the layers of rock formed over billions of years, I see complexity in a tornado and in a sand dune of the same order of complexity in life, neither of which is consciously designed, and is perfectly describable by physical laws.

Were these designed? Or are they not complex?

Hello Starman:

I read the article you referred me to on how our solar system is miraculous... However, I couldn't get much passed the moon part. Here's some of what he says:

"As you can imagine, the probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon."

He doesn't offer any SCIENCE to boost his claim. He just say's it's not so because he can't imagine the probability of two planets colliding (or it doesn't fit his preconceived notions). Therefore, it's not so……

Huh??

In fact, it's VERY probable. No, not just VERY, but VERY, VERY, probable when you consider the number of solar systems in, and the age of the Universe.

I don't think religionists or creationists like yourself have come to grips with the size of the Universe. How many solar systems do you think there are? Me?? I think there are MORE solar systems in the Universe than there are grains of sand on ALL the beaches of this planet. Given THAT number, I think a lot of things are probable.

How does religion deal with the possibility (probability) of lots of different beings in the Universe? Since probabilities play a large part in your argument, do you say there's NO probability of other intelligent life out there?

excon

the probability of accidental life, and then accidental multicellular life, and then accidental survival of that life, and then accidental intelligence... accidental dna? Dna is incredibly complicated, its like if a whole beach of your metaphorical sand grains accidentally formed a huge double helix chain that just happens to become a part of a center of a cell and makes the whole life thing work...

Why are you using the word accidental? An accident is something that wasn't meant to happen but did.

Why wasn't life meant to happen? What evidence do you have for that? Does everythign happen because it's meant to? Do you not believe in free will?

You seem to think that complexity indicates design. I see complexity in the layers of rock formed over billions of years, I see complexity in a tornado and in a sand dune of the same order of complexity in life, neither of which is consciously designed, and is perfectly describable by physical laws.

Were these designed? or are they not complex?

Good, now we are getting somewhere. Still, however, you are arguing against a strawman idea: That I am saying that complexity of any kind indicates design and planning mind. That is NOT what I am saying and not what any other person who views creation as evidence of mind is saying. What is in reality being said is that there is just too much evidence of a guiding mind indicating planning in nature for us to ignore the strong indication of mind. If we do, then we will automatically contradict our own scientific criteria which requires us to interpret such a display ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNCTION as 100% indicative of mind.

Again, Capuchin, you have evaded answering my question directly. Why is it that atheistic scientists are so quick in seeing a few scratches on stone as evidence of a guiding mind and not willing to attribute a mind behind the existence of a super computer like the brain? Complexity organized for purpose found anywhere in the universe would immediately be tagged as evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Better yet, even a few scratches on a wall which display rudimentary organization toward purpose will immediately and unequivocally be tagged as such evidence. Yet, the brain' ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY shouts at these very people with its display of ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY and it nary strikes one of their neurons as even remotely quaint--instead, they ignore it in full boldfaced violation of their own scientific criteria. To make matters even more offensive, they require others to ignore what they refuse to ignore when looking for evidence of a guiding mind if it doesn't contradict their atheism. I personally don't trust people who contradict themselves that way.


BTW

Describable things and created things are not mutually exclusive. Or are you proposing that created things must be indescribable?

Created things are indescribable
That thing is describable
That thing wasn't created

As you can see the premise is untrue making the conclusion false.

Howeever, perhaps you mean that you can come up with another explanation instead of creation. Of course we can. But we shouldn't if there are strong indications otherwise.
And as I pointed out above, the indications of otherwise are simply too strong to ignore.

The blind chance explanation is illogical based on its inherent contradictory nature and flies in the face of the requirements of a fair and logical approach which constitute the observation and conclusion process of the scientific method.

You have to have intelligence to mean something to happen.
When an apple falls out of a tree, that's physics. The apple didn't mean to fall out of the tree, it just did, hence, if the apple fell just due to simple gravity, with no intelligence causing it to fall, it wasn't expressl "meant" to fall

Hello Starman:

I read the article you referred me to on how our solar system is miraculous... However, I couldn't get much passed the moon part. Here's some of what he says:

"As you can imagine, the probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon."

He doesn't offer any SCIENCE to boost his claim. He just say's it's not so because he can't imagine the probability of two planets colliding (or it doesn't fit his preconceived notions). Therefore, it's not so……

Huh??

In fact, it's VERY probable. No, not just VERY, but VERY, VERY, probable when you consider the number of solar systems in, and the age of the Universe.

I don't think religionists or creationists like yourself have come to grips with the size of the Universe. How many solar systems do you think there are? Me?? I think there are MORE solar systems in the Universe than there are grains of sand on ALL the beaches of this planet. Given THAT number, I think a lot of things are probable.

How does religion deal with the possibility (probability) of lots of different beings in the Universe? Since probabilities play a large part in your argument, do you say there's NO probability of other intelligent life out there?

excon

You mean there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth combined. Still impressive in any case.



About the all those solar systems you are so certain exist. I wouldn't be so sure.
We have only examined a minute part with our feeble instruments and any conclusion based on that minute examination constitutes the fallacy of hasty conclusion based on too small a sample. It's like examining one microscopic corner of a room in a hotel which have thousands of millions of rooms and claiming that the conditions of that minute corner applies to the whole room and all the other billions of rooms. Not only that, but even to the billions of other undetectable rooms as well.

In any case, it's good that you require more than just a simple "I don't believe!" as proof and that you notice flaw in an argument which doesn't provide more that mere opinion. However, to draw vast conclusions based on an oversight in argumentation doesn't provide a justifiable basis for the far-reaching conclusion and all embracing categorizations you are attempting to derive from it.

Also, you should know that I am not even able to get past the atheistic abiogenesis claim which is the basis for the whole Godless story that comes after it. So if you only found that illogical statement in the whole article, that's not too bad.

Do I believe in the probability of other creatures out there? Of course. However, I don't believe that their existence depends on mere blind probability. That's where we differ. : )

BTW


Why do you think that people who believe in God are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the size of the universe. I have never met one who challenges the scientific description of the universe's size, neither on this forum or off it. So your conclusion seems quaint baseless to be exact. Unless you can show me where believers in God are challenging science on the size of the universe your idea has to remain in the opinion category.

excerpt
.

... the observable Universe is about 10 billion light years in radius. That number is obtained by multiplying how old we think the Universe is by the speed of light. The reasoning there is quite straightforward: we can only see out to that distance from which light can have reached us since the Universe began... Note: The observable Universe may be only a small part of the physical Universe. In some theories, the Universe may have expanded very fast just after the 'big bang', and only a little bit may have remained within range of detection. See, for instance: Inflation for Beginners (http://epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk/Home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm)

Measuring the Size of the Universe (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124x.html)



So you se,e I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with the size of the universe.

Describable things and created things are not mutually exclusive. Or are you proposing that created things must be indescribable?

Created things are indescribable
that thing is describable
That thing wasn't created
I didn't see that analogy, at all. What I read was that because something is complex doesn't mean it was "designed." Stalactites are complex but I see no design. Crystal formation is random but still doesn't appear designed.

And the assumption that our planet was created for the sole purpose to put humans on leaves out that recent man has only been here for a few thousand years but the age of the planet is several billion years. Even if you include Neanderthals, Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) , this rock in the cosmos has been left to evolve for a long, long time.

I've read where many people say the eye is too complex to have evolved. Yet a thesis, written by an optometrist, while studying Eskimos and their lack of need for corrective eyewear, many years ago, spoke to how the eye has evolved in our time. He stated that since our lives and needs have changed, so has our eyesight, in many cases. He stated that while studying those Eskimos, they didn't require eye glasses, because they were still then using their eyes to focus at longer ranges, across ice packs, and the eye skills of hunter/gatherers had been retained. But since then, we've become more sedintary and instead of chasing our food, ie: the cow, we've domesticated both plant and animal.

In my opinion, that's not designed. We have learned from our forebearers and we have evolved.

I didn't see that analogy, at all. What I read was that because something is complex doesn't mean it was "designed." Stalactites are complex but I see no design. Crystal formation is random but still doesn't appear designed.

I didn't say it is an analogy. I merely identified it as a premise. I also differentiated between random organization and organization which clearly indicates purpose--like the organization of the eye. For example with its, iris=shutter which regulates the amount of light [radiation] permitted to enter the eye, lens with its focusing attendant musculature permitting focusing of that radiation on the, retina which turns the radiation into nerve impulses and sends then to the optic nerve, which in turn transmits the CODED SIGNALS to the brain's occipital lobe which according to you just happens to know how to decipher them and just happens to know how to transform these neurotransmissions into images. That kind of so called merely by blind mindless chance organization.


And the assumption that our planet was created for the sole purpose to put humans on leaves out that recent man has only been here for a few thousand years but the age of the planet is several billion years. Even if you include Neanderthals, Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) , this rock in the cosmos has been left to evolve for a long, long time.

I don't deny that the age of the planet is billions of years and neither do all of those believing in a creator. So your argument isn't applicable to me or to millions of others who believe in a creator and in the age of the earth as described by science.


I've read where many people say the eye is too complex to have evolved. Yet a thesis, written by an optometrist, while studying Eskimos and their lack of need for corrective eyewear, many years ago, spoke to how the eye has evolved in our time. He stated that since our lives and needs have changed, so has our eyesight, in many cases. He stated that while studying those Eskimos, they didn't require eye glasses, because they were still then using their eyes to focus at longer ranges, across ice packs, and the eye skills of hunter/gatherers had been retained. But since then, we've become more sedintary and instead of chasing our food, ie: the cow, we've domesticated both plant and animal.

Just as Darwin did, and he has been criticized by evolutionists themselves for it, you are confusing organism's potential for adaptability to environment as evolution when all it is adaptability to environment. That capability is part of an organism's genetics and has NOTHING to do with evolution as understood today.


In my opinion, that's not designed. We have learned from our forebearers and we have evolved.

And you are entitled to your particular opinion although it definitely isn't what evolutionists are teaching today. Thery prefer to believ in punctuated equilibrium now.


BTW

Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the member of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless." —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

You seem to be fixed on this "blind chance" explanation. I have no idea wher eyou have got it from or why you still think that it how evolution or abiogenesis works when I have explained otherwise to you.

There's very little blind chance in the laws of physics, and there's very little blind chance in natural selection.

You seem to be fixed on this "blind chance" explanation. I have no idea wher eyou have got it from or why you still think that it how evolution or abiogenesis works when I have explained otherwise to you.

There's very little blind chance in the laws of physics, and there's very little blind chance in natural selection.


Feel free to explain again if you feel it will help clarify the issue.

We go on and on and simply skirt the truth of the matter, WE DON"T know and rather than leave it at that we still wish to fill in the gaps with our own speculations.
Cows are prey, food animals we use for EATING and tastes better than bark if prepared the correct way. (BBQ)
A crazy A$$ human goes off, and kills a lot of other humans, has nothing to do with cows, period.
Mans knowledge of everything has holes in it, that we as humans tend to fill with speculations and opinions and its all well and good, except no one seems to want to give the correct factual answer..............I DON"T KNOW!. yet. Just as human evolution has replaced outmoded thinking it will again replace the blanks in our thinking, with facts if we exist long enough.

Yes, it is considered morrally right to kill cows
But is it ethically right? They are just as alive as we are. They are far more innocent than we are, since cows do not murder, rape, thieve, steal, hate, envy etc
They could be considered a superior race.

yes, it is considered morrally right to kill cows
but is it ethically right? they are just as alive as we are. they are far more innocent than we are, since cows do not murder, rape, thieve, steal, hate, envy etc
they could be considered a superior race.

Morally and ethically are synonymous.

Very few species murder, rape, thieve, hate, envy etc.

Those traits belong virtually exclusively to the most dangerous species on the planet: humans.

How can cows be considered a superior race or even a superior species?
race - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race)
species - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species)

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?:confused:

Grace and Peace

Why even compare cows and human murder?

Cows,sheep,goat etc has been given to us humans by the Almighty as a food source (milk products and meat) and clothing/daily needs (wool,hide etc).

Humans being murdered and cows being slaughtered cannot be compared, especially when animals are slaughtered the Islamic way.
:: The Halal Science Center, Chulalongkorn University :: (http://www.halalscience.org/en/knowledge_detail.php?Id=88)

So I do not think we should even compare a random killing spree of humans with slaughtering of cows for food ,
as food is a neccessity for survival and nutrition of the body.

Philophosy teaches that morals and ethics are different
One is what a particular society says is right
The other is what is truly right, like an overall truth about what is the right thing to do, that applies to all peoples, that all societies should strive to achieve.

Religion is something MAN MADE to keep people warm and fuzzy in their beds at night.
Where is your proof of ANY god? And don't give me the bible.. The lord of the rings was a good story too.

Everything on and including Earth is made up from the same basic elements. From a rock, to us. FACT
Get your heads out of the clouds, because your never going to be up there, unless your in a plane or a rocket.