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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

Regarding Christians who believe in evolution, please see:

Science, Technology and Faith

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

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

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

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

What is your explanation here?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

So, back to the original question....

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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:

Quote:

---

Excerpt:

Assuming a 50-key typewriter to accommodate letters, numbers, and punctuation, the chance of typing “THE” is one in 50 x 50 x 50 (50-3), or one in 125,000. At a rate of one strike per second this would take 34.72 hours. For the phrase “THE LORD” the chance becomes 50-8 and requires 1,238,663.7 years. The entire Psalm requires 9.552 x 101016 years to complete on average. The age of the universe is only 15 billion years according to evolutionists, so the probability is clearly outside of the realm of possibility. (It is possible that the event can happen at any given point in the trials, but the difference in time needed and time allowed is unreasonable.)


When considering the probability of the assembly of a DNA molecule, the same problems arise. Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biophysics at Yale, has calculated that the formation of one E. coli bacteria in the universe at 10-100,000,000,000, or one in 10 to the power of 100 billion. Sir Fred Hoyle has offered the analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747, “nonsense of a high order” in his words. Natural selection cannot be the mechanism that caused life to form from matter as it can only work on a complete living organism...

Another major problem with the probability argument is that the chemical processes that supposedly formed life are also reversible at every step. As water is released in the formation of amino acids, the water is then available to break the bond in the reverse reaction, which is actually more favorable. Oceans are the last place amino acids would form. Huxley's typewriters would have to include a delete key for each other key in order for the analogy to be complete. No matter how much time and matter was available or the rate of interactions of atoms, the probability remains zero for the reversible reactions involved.

Chapter 5: The Origin of Life - Answers in Genesis]

---

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.