Story here.
For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal “people” in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus â a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.
The bag of chemicals we call “ape” is in principle no different from the bag of chemicals we call “human.” Justice Douglas famously wanted to extend rights to rocks and streams. This is where materialist reasoning must lead.
Here’s an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?
I thought Christian doctrine held that the natural world was put here for our benefit, that we could do with it whatever we liked. So there’s nothing wrong with killing an old giraffe and having your picture taken smiling alongside the corpse or being proud of having shot dead a whole range of animals just to demonstrate your prowess as a hunter and with rifle and bow.
Seversky:
You shouldn’t think as there isn’t anything in the Christian doctrine that sez we can do with it whatever we like.
Seversky, as usual, gets things wrong. It is certainly not the Christian doctrine that the natural world is here *exclusively* for our benefit–though it is here in part for our benefit–and that we can therefore do with it whatever we like. That charge was made against Christianity starting in the 1950s, but careful studies of both the Bible and the tradition have since shown that the charge is based on a gross oversimplification of Christian teaching about nature, based on a few out-of-context Biblical passages.
Proverbs 12:10
“A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.”
Seversky @1
I realize your comment was probably not made all that seriously, but it does show a complete misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I do suspect that some of the incredibly wrong stuff you say here is motivated by a strong dislike for Christianity. Is that true?
Hunting in Atheist Sweden is very popular. http://www.huntinginsweden.com.....weden.html
Beastiality is popular there too. Scary place to be a critter yikes.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bestiality_and_Sweden
Actually, over at AtBC, The Whole Truth (credit where credit’s due) saved me the trouble of finding the relevant passages from the OT:
and
I have had Christians argue that these verses mean ‘absolute authority over’ although, to be fair, others have contended that something like ‘stewardship’ is what is actually implied. It seems to turn on what is meant by ‘dominion’ here. Perhaps the English word means something more absolute than the Greek or Hebrew originals.
Hunter/Gatherer is part of the Materialist narrative. So is nature being red in tooth and claw. And the term “Humanist”. Humanist lol.
Only thing worse than a Humanist is a Secular Humanist. Apex predator maiming the souls of others. Bad very bad.
Seversky: FTR, you are citing the operator of a hate and slander site and web vandal. KF
A few days ago a Darwinist claimed that,,,
Which was surprising news to me since, as far as I knew, humans and apes are not just in separate genera but also in separate families:
The Darwinist went on to inform me that the classification that King and Wilson used was from 40 years ago and that Darwinists had now ‘monkeyed’ with cladistic analysis and that humans are now reclassified as apes. (I guess it is ‘official’ since a Darwinist did the reclassifying đ )
The ‘reclassification’ did not surprise me one bit since, in regards to being a true science, cladistic analysis has much to be desired as a true science since it presupposes universal common descent as true before a single line is drawn on a sheet of paper (i.e. it presupposes its conclusion into its premises):
I did not know much about cladistics until Nick Matzke tried to use Cladistics, (i.e. imaginary lines drawn on paper inferring relationships that never existed), to refute Meyerâs book âDarwinâs Doubtâ.
David Berlinski, in typical Berlinski wit and style, solidly refuted Matzkeâs supposed solid refutation.
Stephen Meyer himself also addressed Matzkeâs use of Cladistics to try to support Darwinism and clearly shows, for the lay person, why it fails to upset the argument for ID:
As any fair minded person can see, cladistic analysis has much to be desired as to being a rigorous science.
Moreover, contrary to what the Darwinist believed to be true, the known differences between apes and humans have been growing larger, not smaller, over the last 40 years.
So if anything, the original classification that had humans classified not just in separate genera but also in separate families should have been reinforced not weakened.
For instance, the supposed 99% similarity between chimps and humans, that King and Wilson originally came up with, has now been found to be a fallacious number. Jeffrey Tomkins did a comprehensive genomic comparison and arrived ar a 70% figure instead of a 99% figure:
Moreover, unexpected genetic similarity is found in radically different species, such as dolphins and kangaroos:
Thus genetic similarity is not as good a benchmark for inferring relationships as Darwinists had presupposed.
Moreover, it is found that King and Wilson were correct in their hunch that genomic regulatory systems between chimps and humans would be found to be very different.
The regulatory regions of the genomes between chimps and humans are found to be âorders of magnitudeâ different:
Moreover, if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, mutations to the developmental gene regulatory networks are found to be âalways catastrophically badâ:
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be âalways catastrophically badâ. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, âorders of magnitudeâ, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. If Darwinism were a normal science, instead of a faith based belief system for atheists, this finding would count as a solid falsification.
Another ‘monkey wrench’ in cladograms of Darwinists is that, anatomically, we are now found to be closer to pigs than to chimps.
Now to be sure, the Darwinist who put forward the idea that a pig/chimp hybrid produced humans was roundly condemned by other Darwinists.
But the funny thing in all that condemnation from other Darwinists is that none of the other Darwinists who condemned his âhereticalâ idea were able to refute his âpimp hybridâ hypothesis with any real empirical evidence to the contrary:
Does anyone truly think that think that pigs, kangaroos, or dolphins, ought to be grouped anywhere near chimps as our next of kin on the imaginary cladograms of Darwinists? Thus, that pretty much renders cladograms useless as far as rigorous science is concerned.
Another place where âorders of magnitudeâ differences are found between humans, chimps, (and all other animals), is in the âimage of Godâ that is uniquely inherent to man.
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school.
And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is found to be foundational to life itself:
As well, as if that was not âspookyâ enough, information, not material, is found to be foundational to the universe itself:
Finding both life, and the universe itself, to be ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and finding humans, among all creatures on earth, to uniquely possess the ability to understand, communicate, and create information, is certainly very strong support for the Christian belief that we humans were made in the image of God.
It is hard to imagine what a more convincing proof that we are made in the ‘image of God’ might look like.
I guess a more convincing proof could be if God became a man, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, so as to prove He was God. But who has ever heard of such a thing as God becoming a mere man so as to save us from death? đ
Verses and Music:
Seversky,
You really irk me. @1 you declare your understanding of Christian doctrine as “… that we could do with it whatever we liked.” pertaining to man’s dominion over the earth. You are intent on presenting the blackest, meanest reading you can possibly muster when you know full well that reading wildly misrepresents mainstream Christian understanding of what man’s dominion entails. You demonstrate that in the final paragraph of your follow-up @7 where, when you double-down, you admit that you know there are some of the Christian community that believe otherwise. You are fully aware, as well, that Christian doctrine strongly encourages righteous behavior all the while recognizing that “none are found righteous, no, not one.” It follows that man’s dominion was intended to be executed righteously and not in anyway we like. Unrighteous exercise of man’s dominion, directly resulting from mankind’s lack of righteousness, is not in accord with Christian doctrine but is expected in the Christian understanding of mankind’s behavior in the present era.
Your anti-Christian bigotry is shining forth boldly and proudly. If you were “to be fair,” you would have been more circumspect and considered more of Christian doctrine and found it wise to keep your bigoted opinion to yourself.
Stephen
Seversky,I think Abraham Lincoln put it best: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Cheers
KF: “Seversy: FTR, you are citing the operator of a hate and slander site and web vandal. KF”
Actually he is citing the bible. But it is refreshing to see you admit that the bible contains hate and slander. I was afraid that I was just misinterpreting it.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr Arrington. The world has gone loco when animals are given more rights than people…by people. We have sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.
Is barabara jaffe a real person. ?
Saying apes have human rights/laws is stripping away human rights and laws.
The people never gave these rights to creatures. Its by the consent of the p[ the people only that man has rights save self evident God given rights.
this Jusge is a fool and a enemy to justice, intelligence, America.
Why not make the apes the judges? Probably affirmitive action would bring the same result.
So a unborn baby is not covered by human rights but a stinking ape is.
truly evidence the judges are interfering with the laws and not obeying them.
Fire her please.
I’m going to make a prediction, this drive to give animals personhood status is going to back fire on these green hippies and secular humanists, it won’t be long before the first loony will announce his intention to legally marry some animal and what kind of bigot will you be to prevent two people who love each other from getting married?
Seversky (7):
As someone who has translated the “Greek or Hebrew originals” I can tell you that in the broader Biblical context these statements do not mean what you take them to mean. And anyone familiar with the theological and historical discussion over these passages knows this. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles addressing exactly the charge that you are making. You should learn something about theology and Biblical exegesis before you make reckless and irresponsible statements. And you won’t learn anything about those subjects over at AtBC. Try a good university library, and some good books from that library. Or better still, swallow your science-geek pride and take a course in philosophy, theology, history, Biblical studies, etc. from a qualified teacher at a good school. You’ll be a better person for it.
Andre
Sadly it’s already happening, we are descending into madness…
http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1516404
Eugen & Andre: What is there to say, other than that whom the gods would destroy, first they rob of reason — this is bizarre, utter shameless insanity [“marrying” a Ferris Wheel or the like?] . . . and increasingly in the halls of power. (Other than, read the diagnosis and prognosis here.) KF
Timaeus, I just want to express appreciation for your courage, stance and outspokenness as a classics scholar. KF
Timaeus @ 20
That’s fine. It makes you one of the best-placed here to explain what it should mean. I’m always willing to learn. Where do the KJV and later versions get it wrong?
Seversky, Those Bible passages do not support your claim- not even close. Having dominion over something does NOT mean you can do as you please.
Sev, the KJV is 400 years old, 250 years old in the most common revision in use; there has been a lot of progress with understanding language since and there has been a relaxation of the political constraints of the time that led to an over emphasis on word for word literalism when a more dynamically equivalent rendering would perhaps have been truer to the intent; one had to reckon with suspicious and hostile critics looking for any handy excuse to reject and on balance the safest path was what is often the second best technical translation option, knowing that the translation operated in the context of scholarship and a tradition of educated clergy able to draw out deeper features and nuances. In short, first class exegesis and preaching are a necessary companion to popular translation into the vernacular; something that is too often overlooked. But, on balance the KJV is rightfully regarded as a classic of translation and as a blessing in its own right. Other versions sometimes tend to follow its precedent too much, for various reasons. But the wider point is that text without context is pretext; the context at multiple levels makes it clear that human oversight of Creation is a stewardship with accountability and responsibility to manage wisely rather than abuse and despoil. KF
Timaeus can confirm this or correct me,
The biggest problem that the KJV has is that it was not translated from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts but from the Latin Vulgate. Translation is by far the hardest thing to do in this world……
Andre,
Pardon, no.
Wycliffe, yes. And, Jerome’s Vulgate is to be respected in its own right.
By the time of Luther, Calvin & Tyndale, original language sources were consulted. KJV is generations after that.
The KJV people did take inputs from the longstanding and recent translators but worked from the Masoretic tradition and the textus receptus Greek.
The Epistle Dedicatory is clear as to the Royal mandate:
Th original, full title of the work — accordingly — is:
KF
Very good insight, News. Chemicals, snowflakes, rocks, molecules, apes, streams, trees, humans. In materialist reasoning, there is no way to assign a hierarchy of value or quality to any of them. The Ebola virus has rights. So does a forest fire (A materialist told me yesterday that fires “starve” for fuel. I was sad to think about how hungry they must get. đ End world hunger … feed bacteria).
Sometimes the truth is so brutal it’s impossible to add anything with comment … this is one of those cases.
KF
I’m not saying the Vulgate is wrong just that the KJV is a translation of a translation.
SA:
Very good insight, News. Chemicals, snowflakes, rocks, molecules, apes, streams, trees, humans. In materialist reasoning, there is no way to assign a hierarchy of value or quality to any of them.
I think you mean a materialist has no hypothetical authority to tell him how to assign value or quality.
The Ebola virus has rights.
It reflects the nature of the designer like all design,right?
So does a forest fire (A materialist told me yesterday that fires âstarveâ for fuel. I was sad to think about how hungry they must get. đ
I actually said oxygen , second ,not a materialist.
velikovskys
Well, it would still be a problem. If the value of things is determined subjectively by each molecule or atom, then I think that’s what the OP was talking about.
ID doesn’t say anything about that point. But from my perspective (theistic), once you have a designer and you have a purpose (which I discover theologically), then a hierarchy of values is not arbitrary.
There can be a range of values or qualities – a scale, from less to more. From bad to good to perfect. From potential to completeness.
That affects everything. That’s why we learn – from ignorance to knowledge. A scale of value. That’s why we try to improve ourselves, from sin to virtue. When there’s a purpose for life, given by the Designer, then “bad things” have a meaning also. They fit on the scale of values.
We only know what light is because there is contrast with darkness. We know goodness more in contrast with evil.
So, there’s a reason to learn and grow. Otherwise, there’s really nothing in the materialist view.
I apologize for both mistakes. As a non-materialist, what other than material do you accept as existing and what origin do you think it has?
Seversky & stenosemella, would you deny that humans have dominion over all creatures? Seems to be a scientific fact. Humans have supremacy. Does that make me racist? Maybe I’m a Humanist? Theist Humanist.
Good luck explaining that to the sharks and piranhas. Polar bears, mosquitoes, vampire bats and MRSA might welcome your ‘dominion’ too.
Roy
Ppolish: “Seversky & stenosemella, would you deny that humans have dominion over all creatures? Seems to be a scientific fact. Humans have supremacy. Does that make me racist? Maybe Iâm a Humanist? Theist Humanist.”
Yup. That flu virus, HIV, Ebola, TB, Malaria, etc. are quivering in their boots.
sharks
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6415142_f520.jpg
piranhas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-h_T2YN0kY
Polar bears
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/.....lbehaviour
mosquitoes
http://www.discoverthenetworks.....sp?id=1259
vampire bats
https://speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/batsbushmeat.jpg
MRSA
MRSA – Supergerms Do they prove evolution?
In places that are exposed to dirt from the streetâsuch as your houseâthe supergerms are kept in their place not by powerful drugs and poisons but by competition with other germs. And their resistance genes are diluted by genes of the susceptible or non-resistant germs of the same species rather than being concentrated by selective breeding. That is why most non-hospital infections respond readily to antibioticsâthe drug kills most of the germs, the body takes care of the rest. If it were not so, the so called supergerms would escape from hospitals and sweep the world.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....rgerms.asp
Are You Too Clean? – New Studies Suggest Getting A Little Dirty May Be Just What The Doctor Ordered – December 2010
http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101208a
flu virus, HIV, Ebola,
Biological Information – Positive Genetic Entropy 2-7-2015 by Paul Giem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W17lVqYQzq4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ&index=15
Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014
Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 — a medical triumph.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89161.html
The multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe has elucidated:
Here is research of a promising new antibiotic that could, singly, or perhaps in combination with other antibiotics, surpass Dr. Behe’s 2 protein-protein binding site limit:
Andre, pardon again; the original tongues referenced were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and referencing the Bishops’ Bible version as existing translation to be revised per direct comparison with the originals; through a committee of 47 broken into six subcommittees. KJV as noted was principally translated from those, Masoretic and Textus Receptus being the relevant text families used. Vulgate and other translations (esp. Geneva) were used for comparison, but the primary textual authority was Hebrew, Aramaic [esp. for a part of Daniel] and Greek. Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin version, was not the basis for translation. KF
Why do we have to explain it to them? We can control the lot, if we so choose.
Roy, Stenosemella, having dominion does not make one impervious. You realize that right?
And having dominion is a privilege not a right. Sacred privilege, not to be misused, Misused dominion is not a pretty picture. Ugly evil bad.
Ppolish, I am not really arguing against you hear. I always understood it more as stewardship, which implies a responsibility. But the examples I used have nothing to do with scripture. The bible does not mention anything about man having dominion over bacteria, viruses and endoparasites. Actually, I am not aware of the bible mentioning anything about single celled organisms at all. Why do you think this is. It seems like a big oversight for god to ignore the group of living beings that constitute, by orders of magnitude, the most numerous and greatest biomass of life on earth.
Seversky (24):
There is nothing wrong with the King James translation. The problem is with your interpretation, which shows no understanding of the Biblical context. I’ll respond further after you have responded to at least some of my other replies on the other threads where you refused to answer me — the Maine thread, the liberal arts education thread, the thread where you said that divine omniscience was incompatible with free will, and the global cooling thread. Since the global cooling thread was a while back, I’ll give you the link:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ign/66785/
Stenosemella, there were no Hebrew words for bacteria, viruses, or numbers like 14 billion for that matter. God inspired the Prophets in their own language and math. If God used year 5000AD language and math we would all still be scratching our heads saying “what?”. Isn’t there enough confusion as it is?:)
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy “can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing”2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)
Laws of Quarantine
In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that “It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary.”2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.
It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3.
http://www.bibleevidences.com/medical.htm
stenosemella, let’s play your Darwinian belief out for a moment. The belief that bacteria have dominion of the earth, shall we?:
if Darwinian evolution were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only ‘life’ that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the ‘fittest’ are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here:
i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their individual âfitness to reproduceâ.
Moreover, there is very good reason to believe that pathogens were originally created ‘non-pathogenic’, as would be held in the Judeo-Christian worldview as a starting presupposition,:
The following researchers recently were âsurprisedâ by what they found:
Needless to say, this finding is NOT what is expected under Darwinian premises.
Madness: Chimps Granted Habeas Corpus?
Wesley J. Smith April 22, 2015
UPDATE: The judge revoked the “habeas corpus” ruling and changed it to simply an order to show cause. Not sure what that means. I wish it had been dismissed out of hand, but that’s a step in the right direction. Will keep an eye on this important case.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95461.html
If a Zoo performed an abortion on a chimp mother to control zoo population, there would be some conflicted Humanists. I don’t think it would be right. “But the chimp was raped.” Still, find the chimp baby a foster zoo or something. Children Chimps of rape are still precious. Duh.
kairosfocus @ 10
I know who he is and he made a good point here.
SteRusJon @ 14
I gave two different versions both offered by Christians. Christians donât speak with one voice. Donât blame me, blame the Protestant Reformation. Once the supreme authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church were rejected, fragmentation was bound to happen. Whether you like it or not, there are some Christians who take the harder line. I have no idea how many there are but they do exist.
Timaeus @ 20
So do the words in the Greek or Hebrew originals, rendered in English as âdominionâ, have the same meanings as the English translation. Is it even possible to know with any certainty?
Joe @ 25
From Merriam-Webster:
Softball. I rest my case.
kairosfocus @ 26
As I wrote above, Christians no longer speak with one voice nor do all necessarily think as you do. The meaning of the Scriptures is often opaque and, hence, subject to interpretation. Once the Pope and Roman catholic Church were no longer accepted as the supreme arbiters on these questions the way was open for every man to follow his own conscience and decide for himself. It is hardly surprising that there are still different interpretations.
ppolish @ 33
We are very successful as a species and now have considerable power to influence the natural world. But we are still a very long way from having absolute control of it. Dominion implies authority. Does having power mean the same as having authority, though?
Timaeus @ 42
If there is nothing wrong with the KJV then why have there been so many subsequent versions?
You may think my interpretation is wrong, I may think your interpretation is wrong. If there is no absolute standard, such as a literal translation of the original text (assuming such a thing is possible) then how do we decide between them? If it becomes a matter of individual interpretation arenât you admitting that Biblical exegesis is in the same position as subjective morality, that, in principle, itâs every man for himself?
As for resurrecting old threads, I donât mind but isnât that up to the admins? People tend to not like having threads derailed.
Seversky:
There is no rule against going back to an old column and posting new comments there. People do it all the time. If you post a new comment on any of the old columns, I will find it. You already have the link to the global cooling column, where my reply to you is #114. The other links are all to recent columns which you can easily find on the main page (the liberal arts column, the column with the state name Maine in the title, and the columns just a few days ago where I challenged you twice on free will and foreknowledge. I’m pretty sure you knew in all or most of these cases that I had replied to you, but chose not to respond. What was the reason for your non-response in these many cases? Do you have something against replying to me in particular, as opposed to others here?
Seversky:
When I said there was nothing wrong with the King James translation, I was referring to the translation of the particular verses of Genesis that you were quoting, not making a comment about the King James version as a whole.
Your original claim was that Christianity taught that we could do anything we wanted with nature. You then proceeded to bring in verses of the Bible to establish that. But words such as “dominion” do not imply absolute power. The King of England in the Middle Ages had “dominion” over England, but could not treat his barons or the peasants any way he wanted to; he was restricted by feudal agreements and common law. In any case, as I said, scores of books and articles have shown that the “dominion” given to man in the Bible is a qualified one, not an absolute right to abuse or destroy nature at will. If you want to know what the Bible teaches, don’t ask the bloggers at AtBC; they don’t know the first thing about it. Get some good works of Biblical scholarship.
Bornagain77
If God knew this all along and cared so much about saving lives, he should have given the poor wretches some effective vaccines and antibiotics rather than priests and quarantine. Designing Mycobacterium leprae and Yersinia pestis was an awful idea to begin with.
Don Pedro
We don’t know what the function is of Mycobacterium leprae only that humans and Armadillos can get leprosy from it, Yersinia pestis is found in flea guts, so it suggests like microflora in the human gut it probably serves a purpose unknown to us because there has not been too much research done on this.
Try not to make religious statements like, the designer would not have done it that way….. please
Andre,
Oh, yes, I’m sure Yersinia pestis is of some great (if unknown) use to fleas. It’s bad luck if God had to kill millions of humans in a rather nasty way to help his chosen insects.
So perhaps you know why why did not send the Israelites vaccines and antibiotics to protect them from the deadly microbes he had himself created? Yeah, I know, quarantine is better than nothing, but noblesse oblige: an omnipotent designer could have been more helpful.
Don Pedro @51
…not allowed Christ to be crucified for the forgiveness of our sins?
…not allowed us humans to be sinful and rebellious?
…not allowed O.T. Job’s children to die so unexpectedly? [Specially considering that Job was not against God]
BTW, can bad things happen to good people?
Well, I believe it happened only once in History, when Christ was crucified. But in that unique event, He offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins and for our eternal reconciliation with Himself, through our saving faith, according to the purpose of His will and for His glory.
Is anyone aware of another instance?
In any case, are we the creatures supposed to tell how our Creator should have done things? Really?
In this blog there are many lengthy discussions about the origin of life. The disagreement continues and will continue. It’s the result of the confrontation between two completely irreconcilable worldview positions. On one side stand those who believe that the ultimate reality is just matter and energy and any combination of them. On the opposite side stand those who believe what is written in John 1:1-5. Between those two opposite worldview positions there are many different variations of belief systems.
I believe in the one and only Who claims to be The Way, The Truth and The Life.
He allows you to believe anything else you want to.
It has been said that at the end of the day each of us can choose between doing everything as Frank Sinatra did, or wanting to do things according to the will of our Maker.
The field is leveled right in front of the cross. No difference between any of us, regardless of ethnic, educational, social, economic or cultural background. It’s what we do regarding God’s offer what counts. Nothing else.
Do you accept it?
I pray that you will consider it seriously. God loves you. I know it because He proved to me that He loves me, and I’m not better than you.
Serdecznie pozdrawiam.
Don Pedro is another crank angry with God…… been there done that have the t-shirt.
Don Pedro you state:
As others have pointed out on this thread Don Pedro, you are making a theological, not scientific, argument against God. Which is not surprising since Darwinian evolution is, and always has been, at its core, based on (bad) Theological premises.
Here is an excellent lecture, based primarily on Cornelius Hunter’s book ‘Darwin’s God’, that clearly reveals how reliant Darwinism is on (bad) Theological premises:
The main problem with the theological ‘argument from evil’, that Darwinists continually use to try to prove Darwinism is scientifically true, is, besides the fact that it is not a scientific argument, that it defeats itself from within.
More specifically, the argument from evil presupposes evil as real in its premises and then denies the reality of evil in its conclusion. Dr. Hunter puts the irreconcilable for Darwinists like this:
Also of note to the ‘problem of evil’, both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day and shared many strange similarities in their lives,
,,,but the one common thing they shared that separated the two men drastically was the way they choose to handle the evil that happened in their lives. Darwin, though drifting away from God for a long while, was permanently driven away from God because of what he perceived to be the ‘unjust’ death of his daughter,,
Whereas Lincoln, on the other hand, was driven from his mild skepticism into a deep reliance upon God because of the death of his son.
Moreover, Darwinism, besides being based on (bad) theology, is not based on any rigid mathematical premises as other overarching theories of science are.
Rigid mathematical premises that would allow researchers to test against so as to potentially falsify neo-Darwinism (again as the mathematical foundations of other overarching theories of science are tested against).
In fact, Charles Darwin’s college degree was in theology not science. (Moreover, I’ve heard it said that Darwin hated math.)
Of related note to your quip that God ‘should have given the poor wretches some effective vaccines and antibiotics’.
Yet, as great as the discoveries of vaccines and antibiotics have been for mankind, the fact of the matter is that each of us must still ultimately face death regardless of the reprieve those medicines have brought us.
And there is only one ‘doctor’ who has found the ‘vaccine’ for that terminal disease of death.
Amazingly, many people angrily refuse to even try this vaccine that will save their lives from death.
Will you accept this vaccine that will save your life from death Don Pedro?
Verses, Music, and Quote:
Now, now, Andre. You know full well that Don Pedro is so wise as to know God’s purpose for creation and mankind’s place in it and is, in fact, so much wiser than God so as to know He is a complete and utter fool in the way He carrying it forward. What is wrong with you, Andre.
Stephen
Seversky,
I am aware that Christians do not speak with a single voice on any subject. That is irrelevant. I seriously doubt that among thoughtful, well studied Christians you would find many, if any whatsoever, that hold to interpretation you presented. If you are acquainted with some less thoughtful who hold such a view and you wish to put their view forward as representative of the mainstream Christian view tells me you are not, in the least, looking to be fair. You would certainly cry foul if I were to put forward the thoughts of Farmer Hick as representative of biologist’s views on biological matters. Instead, I see someone who wishes to paint Christianity in as dark a light as he possibly can on any and every occasion he encounters. Continued self-defense of the misrepresentation merely confirms my initial reaction. A fair and truly representative presentation of the matter would not have served your nefarious purposes.
Stephen
Seversky proves it is clueless:
Seversky, Those Bible passages do not support your claim- not even close. Having dominion over something does NOT mean you can do as you please
What part of that says we can do as we please? Not one of your bolded parts helps you. Obviously you are just a desperate ignoramus.
Piotr erects another strawman:
How do you know what those organisms were originally designed for? Why can’t it be that they became deadly due to Darwinian evolution, ie random effects?
And if disease didn’t exist what would be the impetus for scientific discovery?
Joe, it has been found that ‘forcing’ bacteria to evolve turns helpful bacteria into pathogenic bacteria:
From friend to foe: How benign bacteria evolve to virulent pathogens, December 12, 2013
Excerpt: “Bacteria can evolve rapidly to adapt to environmental change. When the “environment” is the immune response of an infected host, this evolution can turn harmless bacteria into life-threatening pathogens. …It is thought that many strains of E. coli that cause disease in humans evolved from commensal strains.”
http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....volve.html
of related note:
Setting a Molecular Clock for Malaria Parasites – July 8, 2010
Excerpt: The ancestors of humans acquired the parasite 2.5 million years ago.
“Malaria parasites undoubtedly were relatively benign for most of that history (in humans), becoming a major disease only after the origins of agriculture and dense human populations,” said Ricklefs.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_s....._id=117259
“the AIDS virus originated relatively recently, as a mutation from SIV, the simian immuno-deficiency virus. According to Wikipedia, this virus was also benign in its original form:.. Unlike HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections in humans, SIV infections in their natural hosts appear in many cases to be non-pathogenic. Extensive studies in sooty mangabeys have established that SIVsmm infection does not cause any disease in these animals, despite high levels of circulating virus.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-448372
Bats and Viruses: Friend or Foe? – 2013
Viral RNA specific to both Ebola and Marburg has been identified in a number of fruit bat species from Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo,,,
,,,bats generally harbour viruses with no clinical signs of disease.,,,
it seems unlikely that bats’ ability to asymptomatically carry viruses is a recently acquired trait.,,,
Do Viruses Benefit the Host?
The fact that bats harbour such a large number of viruses poses an important question: do these viruses provide any benefit to the host?,,,
It seems plausible that some of the viruses that bats harbour may have oncolytic properties that confer antitumor activity to the host.,,,
http://www.plospathogens.org/a.....at.1003651
The origin and history of smallpox is much less well understood, but it appears that smallpox has also been benign for most of its history and is only recently pathogenic:
On the origins of smallpox – where and when did variola virus emerge? – March 2011
Excerpt: Smallpox-like skin lesions have been observed on Egyptian mummies dating from as far back as 1580 B.C yet there is no mention of the disease at all in the Old or New testaments nor even the Hippocratic texts. There was some mention of a smallpox-like disease in China and India as early as 1500 B.C but the only unmistakable description can be found from the 4th century A.D in China. Interestingly there was no mention of smallpox in the American continents nor in sub-Saharan Africa prior to European exploration.,,,
A rodent origin of smallpox?
We can investigate the origin of smallpox through the molecular characterisation of other poxviruses. Variolataterapox virus) and camelpox viruses and they all are more related to each other than to other poxviruses, such as monkeypox. When their genomes were compared to that of variola, a time since divergence was estimated at between 16,000 and 68,000 years ago
http://ruleof6ix.fieldofscienc.....-when.html
Genesis 2: 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Man is commanded to “take care” of God’s creations.
BA77,
I have often wondered about viruses along those lines. Critics of ID sometimes ask where the designer’s laboratory is. Could viruses like SID be mobile construction machines?
BA77,
No, Bornagain, I’m only making fun of your nonsensical suggestion that quarantine was God’s gift to the Israelites to help them cope with leprosy, bubonic plague and the like. Of course if God existed and had really wanted to help them, he could have done better. The argument is against you, not God.
Piotr:
How do you know?
I extrapolate from the behaviour of intelligent agents known to me.
Don Pedro, the ‘argument from evil’, which is the argument you are using, IS a theological argument.
Moreover, as was shown to you already, it is a self-defeating theological argument.
That you cannot understand, or more likely, refuse to grasp, the inherent fallacy of your theological argument is not my fault.
My duty is to inform the unbiased reader as to the sheer incoherence of your atheistic position.
By the way, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to show the insanity of atheism, and of atheists in general, to others. You are a terrific sport for allowing yourself to look like a fool in this way! đ
Piotr:
And what did they do to help?
Here is something that is sure to rile a few. Animals, including apes and our pets, are all meat robots. They have no consciousness.
Mapou, I am afraid that I must disagree. Their consciousness may be at a different level than ours, but it clearly exists.
How does materialism undermine itself?
Let me count the ways….
Do you think other primates are checking out tonight’s celestial alignment (the waxing crescent Moon in between Venus and Jupiter) and contemplating their place in the universe?
unwilling participant,
I do not believe that it is provable that other humans have consciousness, much less animals. I can only know for sure that I have it and that other people claim to have it. Maybe my subjective consciousness is completely different from yours. Maybe animals have a richer consciousness than I do. Who knows?
Squirrels understand nuts much better than you do Collin – that much is certain.
UP:
Here are the reasons for my stance on the consciousness of animals:
1. As a Christian, I believe that Yahweh is a benevolent creator. I don’t think that they would create zillions of species with the capacity to consciously suffer but with no possibility of salvation.
2. Animal behavior, such as seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, can be easily emulated in machines. It’s called temporal reinforcement learning. It’s a mechanical, cause-effect process. I don’t believe for a second that it constitutes consciousness. Otherwise, a thermostat would also be conscious. And why stop at a thermostat? Even a grain of sand would be conscious.
3. Materialism cannot explain our infatuation with beauty and the arts. Why? Simply because motivation (a set of likes and dislikes) necessarily anticipates its targets or objects. The problem is that the target must be known and pre-programmed beforehand. Other than the basic survival instincts, we are not preprogrammed with such likes and dislikes because they cannot be known beforehand.
4. Of course, Darwinian evolution does not and cannot give a rat’s behind about music and the arts so as to select for them.
I have other reasons for my position but I think this is enough for now.
ppolish:
LOL
Collin, very good point. I agree. The only one I can feel fairly certain about is myself.
Mapou
I agree with you 100% if God gave animals a conscience and consciousness but no free will he would be one evil dude……
Unwilling Recipient….
Read this;
http://organizations.utep.edu/.....el_bat.pdf
Could anybody give opinion on:
For the soul of every living thing is in the hand of God,
Job 12:10
“Hereâs an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?” The answer, of course, is no, because any horror or injustice that can legally be perpetrated on any human being advances progressive causes. So it is an advantage to the progressive that unborn children can legally be killed by dismemberment, just as it is an advantage if the law equates chimps and humans.
Does anyone remember Baby Doe of Bloomington, Indiana, legally starved to death in a hospital at the behest of his parents, because he had Down syndrome?
news:
âHereâs an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?â
Eight pound babies are being chopped up?
velikovskys
That’s how they do what are called partial birth abortions.
If other animals are not conscious then how the heck do they know what to do? Many organisms solve problems and that is direct evidence of consciousness.
Joe:
Joe, you’re confusing intelligence with consciousness. A thermostat is not conscious but it “knows’ what to do. We now have cars that “know” how to reliably drive themselves in many different environments. We have AI programs that can learn to play a video game all by themselves and they do it better than human players. Are they conscious? I don’t think so.
SA:
Thatâs how they do what are called partial birth abortions.
Eight pound babies are legally terminated by partial birth abortions for the crime of not being born?
Vel
Yes
After partial birth comes “born”. A baby that is born cannot be legally “terminated”. What fault did the partially born baby commit that made it legal to kill him or her?
It must be that the partially born baby committed “the crime of not being born”.
SA:
Yes
Where?
After partial birth comes âbornâ. A baby that is born cannot be legally âterminatedâ. What fault did the partially born baby commit that made it legal to kill him or her?
None,what fault did the born mother commit to make it legal to kill her?
In Canada, where there is absolutely no legal restriction on abortion, and where it’s cost is covered by the government, over 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. Less than 0.2% occur after 20 weeks, and most of those are due to severe birth defects or the health of the mother. In fact, it is very difficult to get an abortion on demand in Canada after the 20th week simply because you won’t find a doctor who will perform it. So to talk about partial birth abortions is just fear mongering.
I am not in favour of abortion but making it illegal is not the answer. Improved sex education, access to birth control and support and non-stigmatizing of young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy is the best way to reduce abortions.
There are about 40,000 traffic fatalities in the US every year. Worldwide, the number of traffic deaths is in the millions. A few thousands people died on 9/11. The US government then spent tens of billions to invade Iraq and fight terrorism and tens of thousands of people died as a result and thousands are still dying every month. If they had spent that money on developing safe cars that drive themselves, they would save millions of lives.
Dying is a way of life in this world. Our priorities are all mixed up. Abortions are just part of the norm.
“Dying is a way of life in this world. Our priorities are all mixed up. Abortions are just part of the norm.”
Anybody who has ever faced the abortion decision knows that it is not the norm.
Consciousness is just a state of awareness. I have seen birds fly through the hole of a chain-linked fence. It had to be aware of itself, the hole and how to navigate through it.
Chimpanzees plan attacks- that alone shows awareness.
Joe:
My computer knows what to do when I type on the keyboard. Is it conscious? You are conflating intelligence with consciousness exactly like the materialists do.
Your computer does as it is programmed to do. Any consciousness it exhibits traces back to the people who designed it and the people who programmed it.
How are you defining consciousness? I am OK with Merriam-Webster. It sounds to me like you are trying to define it to exclude everything but humans.
Joe @97,
I’m saying that intelligent behavior, regardless of its source, is not proof of consciousness.
Personally, I define consciousness as the ability to associate subjective qualities or qualia (such as color sensations, tastes, timber, types of pain or pleasure, etc.) that do not exist in the physical realm with various physical stimuli.
The neuronal firings in our visual cortex that correspond to the blue sensation are identical to the adjacent neuronal firings that give us the red sensation. My position is that these conscious sensations do not come from the material world but from our spirits.
There is only one way, that I’m aware of, that our consciousness (spirit) manifests itself to others. Our infatuation with beauty and the arts is a purely spiritual phenomenon, i.e., one which requires consciousness. No intelligent machine can recognize a beautiful thing unless it is expressly programmed or trained to do it.
Mapou:
Other animals have that
Joe:
You don’t know that and you have no way of knowing that. Sorry.
Umm, coloration is very much a part of the animal world. Their pain and suffering can be heard and observed.
You have no way of supporting your claim. Sorry.
#81 Eugen
Sorry I didn’t notice your post before.
Here’s some contextual information followed by a commentary on Job 12:10 as per your request:
This is part of Job’s answer to his critics.
Basically in this chapter Job replies: The sovereign Lord has done this.
Commentaries by Reformation Study Bible
provided by Ligonier Ministries:
12:1â14:22 Jobâs reply in this long speech starts with a blast of sarcasm against his counselors. He continues to speak to them through 13:19. Beginning in 13:20 Job turns to God, creating a major break in the speech. This inclination of Job to talk to God (to pray) is in notable contrast to the counselors, who never say a word to God. They only talk about Him
12:4â6 Job agonizes over being made a laughingstock, even to his friends, while evildoers and idolaters live in ease and security
12:7, 8 ask the beasts . . . the earth. Like Eliphaz who had called upon revelation and Bildad who had called upon tradition to support their arguments, Job calls on every creature in the universe to bear witness to his argument that the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer
12:12 This verse can also be translated as a question: âShouldnât wisdom be found among the aged?â The verse is irony aimed at the counselors who are old but have not become wise
12:13â25 In this unit of poetry Job expounds the doctrine of Godâs sovereign freedom. Some have interpreted this as said tongue-in-cheek, a subtle criticism of God for mismanaging the universe. In this view God is limited, and needs to be âforgivenâ by His creatures. But throughout this book, even when Job is raging over his suffering and suggesting doubts about Godâs justice, he always assumes that God is sovereign, and that man can make no effective objection to what He does. Job wrestles with a mystery, one too deep for the shallow counselors. This part of the speech may have been provoked by Zopharâs question in 11:7, âCan you find out the deep things of God?â The poem may also be a reply to Eliphazâs hymn in 5:1â26, where only good things happen to good people, an idea proved false in this stanza.
Related biblical reference:
Acts 17:28 (ESV)
for âIn Him we live and move and have our beingâ;
[Probably from Epimenides of Crete]
In him we live and move and have our being. Paul says that God brought all people into being and they only exist by His providence. In the ancient world the three great mysteries of philosophy and science were the questions of life, motion, and being
Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
Job Chapter 12
In this and the two following chapters we have Jobâs answer to Zopharâs discourse, in which, as before, he first reasons with his friends (see Job 13:19) and then turns to his God, and directs his expostulations to Him, from thence to the end of his discourse.
In this chapter he addresses himself to his friends, and,
I. He condemns what they had said of him, and the judgment they had given of his character, Job 12:1-5.
II. He contradicts and confronts what they had said of the destruction of wicked people in this world, showing that they often prosper, Job 12:6-11.
III. He consents to what they had said of the wisdom, power, and sovereignty of God, and the dominion of His providence over the children of men and all their affairs; he confirms this, and enlarges upon it, Job 12:12-25.
======================================================
======================================================
======================================================
And finally, a commentary on the verse you asked about:
III. Job resolves all into the absolute propriety which God has in all the creatures (Job 12:10): In whose hand is the soul of every living thing.
All the creatures, and mankind particularly, derive their being from Him, owe their being to Him, depend upon Him for the support of it, lie at His mercy, are under His direction and dominion and entirely at His disposal, and at His summons must resign their lives.
All souls are His; and may He not do what He will with His own?
The name Jehovah is used here (Job 12:9), and it is the only time that we meet with it in all the discourses between Job and his friends; for God was, in that age, more known by the name of Shaddaiâthe Almighty.
velikovskys
Try google, bing or yahoo search. Term: “Late term abortion”.
Then click “Images”.
In the US, after decades of fighting against them, 14 states still permit late term abortions.
I don’t understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers?
SA:
Try google, bing or yahoo search. Term: âLate term abortionâ.
Then click âImagesâ.
We were talking about partial birth which is illegal In the US,no exceptions.
I donât understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers?
Deliberately no one, she just would be collateral damage.