Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Christianity (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=421)
-   -   Cows or humans? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=119939)

  • Aug 17, 2007, 12:04 AM
    Capuchin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Starman
    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.
  • Aug 17, 2007, 12:12 AM
    Capuchin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by XenoSapien
    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.
  • Aug 17, 2007, 04:54 AM
    ebaines
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by XenoSapien
    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?
  • Aug 17, 2007, 07:37 PM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    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:
    Quote:

    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


    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

    Quote:

    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

    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?
  • Aug 17, 2007, 11:33 PM
    Capuchin
    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.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 01:34 AM
    cal823
    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.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 10:22 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    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.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 10:42 AM
    Capuchin
    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?
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:09 PM
    Capuchin
    Cal, I think you are missing my question.

    Why did God choose Earth to put life on? What's special about Earth?
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:18 PM
    cal823
    God created earth to put life on.
    He wouldn't create earth and make it suitable for us, and then dump us on jupiter.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:21 PM
    Capuchin
    How do you mean "suitable for us"? He hadn't made us yet, right? He made all the other planets too, right?
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:28 PM
    cal823
    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"
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:30 PM
    Capuchin
    The reasons for us being carbon based and oxygen breathing (from a creationist stance) are not obvious to me.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 05:37 PM
    cal823
    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.
  • Aug 18, 2007, 08:14 PM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    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


    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

    Quote:

    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

    Here is an article about the earth and how it is unique:
    The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System
  • Aug 19, 2007, 06:55 AM
    Capuchin
    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?
  • Aug 19, 2007, 07:34 AM
    excon
    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
  • Aug 19, 2007, 07:39 AM
    cal823
    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...
  • Aug 19, 2007, 08:08 AM
    Capuchin
    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?
  • Aug 19, 2007, 08:10 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 08:11 AM
    cal823
    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
  • Aug 19, 2007, 08:50 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    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
    .
    Quote:

    ... 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

    Measuring the Size of the Universe

    So you se,e I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with the size of the universe.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 09:00 AM
    CaptainRich
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Starman
    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 , 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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 09:44 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CaptainRich
    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.

    Quote:

    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 , 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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 10:08 AM
    Capuchin
    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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 10:29 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Capuchin
    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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 12:02 PM
    talaniman
    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.
  • Aug 19, 2007, 10:00 PM
    cal823
    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.
  • Aug 20, 2007, 10:20 AM
    CaptainRich
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cal823
    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
    species - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  • Aug 20, 2007, 12:27 PM
    firmbeliever
    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

    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 ::

    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.
  • Aug 21, 2007, 06:47 AM
    cal823
    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.
  • Mar 17, 2011, 09:16 PM
    ukfoxboy
    Comment on inthebox's post
    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.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 PM.