Intelligent Design

Apes Is People Too

Spread the love

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 — 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?

104 Replies to “Apes Is People Too

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    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.

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    Seversky:

    I thought Christian doctrine held that the natural world was put here for our benefit, that we could do with it whatever we liked.

    You shouldn’t think as there isn’t anything in the Christian doctrine that sez we can do with it whatever we like.

  3. 3
    Timaeus says:

    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.

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Proverbs 12:10

    “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.”

  5. 5
    JDH says:

    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?

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    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

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Actually, over at AtBC, The Whole Truth (credit where credit’s due) saved me the trouble of finding the relevant passages from the OT:

    Genesis 1:26 ESV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    and

    Genesis 1:28 ESV: And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    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.

  8. 8
    ppolish says:

    Hunter/Gatherer is part of the Materialist narrative. So is nature being red in tooth and claw. And the term “Humanist”. Humanist lol.

  9. 9
    ppolish says:

    Only thing worse than a Humanist is a Secular Humanist. Apex predator maiming the souls of others. Bad very bad.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky: FTR, you are citing the operator of a hate and slander site and web vandal. KF

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    A few days ago a Darwinist claimed that,,,

    “Homo is also another genus of ape.”

    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:

    In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
    “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
    Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
    Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
    King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
    David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
    Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975
    Of note: In biology, a genus (plural: genera) is a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family.

    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 🙂 )

    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 Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’.
    David Berlinski, in typical Berlinski wit and style, solidly refuted Matzke’s supposed solid refutation.

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.
    Tight fit, major fail.7
    No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html
    Of note: “In biology, cladistics (originally called phylogenetic systematics) is a taxonomical technique for arranging organisms according to how they branch in the evolutionary tree of life.”
    per Rational Wiki

    Stephen Meyer himself also addressed Matzke’s use of Cladistics to try to support Darwinism and clearly shows, for the lay person, why it fails to upset the argument for ID:

    Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer’s Argument for Intelligent Design
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k

    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:

    The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/95287522

    Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
    Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....chromosome

    Moreover, unexpected genetic similarity is found in radically different species, such as dolphins and kangaroos:

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
    5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    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 ‘orders of magnitude’ different:

    “Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
    Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video
    https://vimeo.com/106012299

    An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer
    TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?
    SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/.....-conflict/

    Moreover, if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, mutations to the developmental gene regulatory networks are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’:

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    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 ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, 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.

    A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
    The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-c.....umans.html

    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 ‘heretical’ idea were able to refute his ‘pimp hybrid’ hypothesis with any real empirical evidence to the contrary:

    Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
    Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
    ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-h.....dence.html

    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 ‘orders of magnitude’ differences are found between humans, chimps, (and all other animals), is in the ‘image of God’ that is uniquely inherent to man.

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    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:

    Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer – video clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, as if that was not ‘spooky’ enough, information, not material, is found to be foundational to the universe itself:

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,,
    “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-q.....cated.html

    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? 🙂

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    https://vimeo.com/97156784

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Verses and Music:

    Philippians 2: 6-11
    Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
    Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc

  14. 14
    SteRusJon says:

    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

  15. 15
    Cross says:

    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

  16. 16
    stenosemella says:

    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.

  17. 17
    Blue_Savannah says:

    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?

    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.

  18. 18
    Robert Byers says:

    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.

  19. 19
    Andre says:

    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?

  20. 20
    Timaeus says:

    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.

  21. 21
    Eugen says:

    Andre

    Sadly it’s already happening, we are descending into madness…

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1516404

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    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

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Timaeus, I just want to express appreciation for your courage, stance and outspokenness as a classics scholar. KF

  24. 24
    Seversky says:

    Timaeus @ 20

    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.

    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?

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    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.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    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

  27. 27
    Andre says:

    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……

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    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:

    when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that, out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the Work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

    Th original, full title of the work — accordingly — is:

    THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment

    KF

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

    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. 🙂 End world hunger … feed bacteria).

    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?

    Sometimes the truth is so brutal it’s impossible to add anything with comment … this is one of those cases.

  30. 30
    Andre says:

    KF

    I’m not saying the Vulgate is wrong just that the KJV is a translation of a translation.

  31. 31
    velikovskys says:

    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 “starve” for fuel. I was sad to think about how hungry they must get. 🙂

    I actually said oxygen , second ,not a materialist.

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    velikovskys

    I think you mean a materialist has no hypothetical authority to tell him how to assign value or quality.

    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.

    It reflects the nature of the designer like all design,right?

    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 actually said oxygen , second ,not a materialist.

    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?

  33. 33
    ppolish says:

    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.

  34. 34
    Roy says:

    Seversky & stenosemella, would you deny that humans have dominion over all creatures?

    Good luck explaining that to the sharks and piranhas. Polar bears, mosquitoes, vampire bats and MRSA might welcome your ‘dominion’ too.

    Roy

  35. 35
    stenosemella says:

    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 I’m a Humanist? Theist Humanist.”

    Yup. That flu virus, HIV, Ebola, TB, Malaria, etc. are quivering in their boots.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    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 street—such as your house—the 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 antibiotics—the 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

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    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:

    When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.
    But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,,
    it “costs” a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,,
    This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients’ virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....edicine_04

    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:

    New class of antibiotics discovered by chemists – March 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Researchers who screened 1.2 million compounds found that the oxadiazole inhibits a penicillin-binding protein, PBP2a, and the biosynthesis of the cell wall that enables MRSA to resist other drugs.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....165953.htm

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    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

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    Good luck explaining that to the sharks and piranhas. Polar bears, mosquitoes, vampire bats and MRSA might welcome your ‘dominion’ too.

    Why do we have to explain it to them? We can control the lot, if we so choose.

  40. 40
    ppolish says:

    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.

  41. 41
    stenosemella says:

    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.

  42. 42
    Timaeus says:

    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/

  43. 43
    ppolish says:

    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?:)

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    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:

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    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 ‘fitness to reproduce’.

    NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
    Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health.....gri-13.htm

    We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
    Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
    I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-b.....tml#ajTabs

    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,:

    Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox…
    The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-529937

    The following researchers recently were ‘surprised’ by what they found:

    Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
    Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
    Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
    “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
    The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
    The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
    Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
    “Maybe species are co-evolving,” he adds. “Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
    http://www.livescience.com/452.....f-bts.html

    Oceanic microbes behave in a synchrony across ocean basins – March 16, 2015
    Excerpt: Researchers have found that microbial communities in different regions of the Pacific Ocean displayed strikingly similar daily rhythms in their metabolism despite inhabiting extremely different habitats — the nutrient-rich waters off California and the nutrient-poor waters north of Hawai’i. Furthermore, in each location, the dominant photoautotrophs appear to initiate a cascade effect wherein the other major groups of microbes perform their metabolic activities in a coordinated and predictable way.,,,
    The bacterial groups common to both ecosystems displayed the same transcriptional patterns and daily rhythms — as if each group is performing its prescribed role at a precise time each and every day, even though these communities are separated by thousands of miles.
    “Our work suggests that these microbial communities broadly behave in a similar manner across entire ocean basins and that specific biological interactions between these groups are widespread in nature,”,,,
    “Surprisingly, however, our work shows that these extremely different ecosystems exhibit very similar diel cycles, driven largely by sunlight and interspecies microbial interactions,” said Aylward, “This suggests that different microbial communities across the Pacific Ocean, and likely waters across the entire planet, behave in much more orderly ways than has previously been supposed,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....102112.htm

    Needless to say, this finding is NOT what is expected under Darwinian premises.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  47. 47
    ppolish says:

    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.

  48. 48
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 10

    Seversky: FTR, you are citing the operator of a hate and slander site and web vandal. KF

    I know who he is and he made a good point here.

    SteRusJon @ 14

    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. …

    I gave two different versions both offered by Christians. Christians don’t speak with one voice. Don’t 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

    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.

    So do the words in the Greek or Hebrew originals, rendered in English as “dominion”, have the same meanings as the English translation. Is it even possible to know with any certainty?

    Joe @ 25

    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

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Full Definition of DOMINION

    1: domain
    2: supreme authority : sovereignty
    3 plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
    4 often capitalized : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state
    5: absolute ownership

    Softball. I rest my case.
    kairosfocus @ 26

    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;

    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

    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.

    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

    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:

    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 aren’t you admitting that Biblical exegesis is in the same position as subjective morality, that, in principle, it’s every man for himself?

    As for resurrecting old threads, I don’t mind but isn’t that up to the admins? People tend to not like having threads derailed.

  49. 49
    Timaeus says:

    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?

  50. 50
    Timaeus says:

    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.

  51. 51
    Don Pedro says:

    Bornagain77

    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.

    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.

  52. 52
    Andre says:

    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

  53. 53
    Don Pedro says:

    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.

  54. 54
    Dionisio says:

    Don Pedro @51

    If God knew this all along and cared so much about saving lives, he should have…

    …not allowed Christ to be crucified for the forgiveness of our sins?

    If God knew this all along and cared so much about saving lives, he should have…

    …not allowed us humans to be sinful and rebellious?

    If God knew this all along and cared so much about saving lives, he should have…

    …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.

  55. 55
    Andre says:

    Don Pedro is another crank angry with God…… been there done that have the t-shirt.

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    Don Pedro you state:

    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.

    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.

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    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 Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s

    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:

    “The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,,
    The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,,
    Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159

    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,

    “Both men lost their mothers in early childhood, both suffered depression and both struggled with religious questions. The two also had poor relations with their fathers and each lost a child in early childbirth. Lincoln and Darwin both share “late bloomers” disease: Neither found real success until their middle years — Darwin published The Origin of the Species at 50 and Lincoln was elected President one year later.”
    http://www.tressugar.com/Linco.....nk-1757730

    ,,,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,,

    “The death of his daughter was a significant event in Darwin’s life, and certainly consolidated his belief that a bad world is incompatible with a good God.”
    http://askjohnmackay.com/quest.....ristianity

    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.

    Abraham Lincoln’s Path to Divine Providence
    Excerpt: In 1862, when Lincoln was 53 years old, his 11-year-old son Willie died. Lincoln’s wife “tried to deal with her grief by searching out New Age mediums.” Lincoln turned to Phineas Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. Several long talks led to what Gurley described as “a conversion to Christ.” Lincoln confided that he was “driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go.”
    http://www.christianity.com/th.....99728.html

    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.)

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Of related note to your quip that God ‘should have given the poor wretches some effective vaccines and antibiotics’.

    smallpox: Edward Jenner was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine,,,, His father was the Reverend Stephen Jenner,,,
    “The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.”
    http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf

    polio and measles vaccine: John Enders, MD
    Death Bed: “On a September evening at their water front home in Connecticut, in 1985, Enders was reading T.S. Eliot aloud to his wife, Carolyn. He finished and went to bed, then quietly died. He was eighty-eight. At his memorial service his friend, the Bishop F.C. Laurence, said, “John Enders never lost his sense of wonder – wonder at the great mystery that exists and surrounds all of God’s creation. This awareness is what gave him his wide vision and open mindedness, his continued interest in all things new, his ability to listen, his humility in the presence of this great mystery, and his never-ending search for the truth.” His widow said that John briefly revealed his heart when he told her, concerning how creation ran, “There must be a mind behind it all.”
    http://www.scienceheroes.com/i.....Itemid=117

    Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer
    Excerpt: In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9,,,
    Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.,,,
    Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists “looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility” would do well to “turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals.”19
    http://www.icr.org/article/ern.....s-pioneer/

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    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:

    1 Corinthians 15:55-57
    O death, where is your victory?
    O death, where is your sting?
    For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    MercyMe – Greater (Official Lyric Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXI0B4iMLuU

    The Easter Question – Eben Alexander, M.D. – March 2013
    Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,,
    Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that — a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn’t simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one.
    But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it’s-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,,
    We are, really and truly, made in God’s image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation — one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone.
    But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It’s not the world we actually live in.,,,
    ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....79741.html

  58. 58
    SteRusJon says:

    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

  59. 59
    SteRusJon says:

    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

  60. 60
    Joe says:

    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

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Full Definition of DOMINION

    1: domain
    2: supreme authority : sovereignty
    3 plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
    4 often capitalized : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state
    5: absolute ownership

    Softball. I rest my case.

    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.

  61. 61
    Joe says:

    Piotr erects another strawman:

    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.

    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?

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  63. 63
    Collin says:

    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.

  64. 64
    Collin says:

    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?

  65. 65
    Don Pedro says:

    BA77,

    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.

    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.

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    Of course if God existed and had really wanted to help them, he could have done better.

    How do you know?

  67. 67
    Don Pedro says:

    I extrapolate from the behaviour of intelligent agents known to me.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    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! 🙂

  69. 69
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    I extrapolate from the behaviour of intelligent agents known to me.

    And what did they do to help?

  70. 70
    Mapou says:

    Here is something that is sure to rile a few. Animals, including apes and our pets, are all meat robots. They have no consciousness.

  71. 71
    unwilling participant says:

    Mapou, I am afraid that I must disagree. Their consciousness may be at a different level than ours, but it clearly exists.

  72. 72
    Jim Smith says:

    How does materialism undermine itself?
    Let me count the ways….

  73. 73
    Joe says:

    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?

  74. 74
    Collin says:

    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?

  75. 75
    ppolish says:

    Squirrels understand nuts much better than you do Collin – that much is certain.

  76. 76
    Mapou says:

    UP:

    Their consciousness may be at a different level than ours, but it clearly exists.

    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.

  77. 77
    Mapou says:

    ppolish:

    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.

    LOL

  78. 78
    unwilling participant says:

    Collin, very good point. I agree. The only one I can feel fairly certain about is myself.

  79. 79
    Andre says:

    Mapou

    I agree with you 100% if God gave animals a conscience and consciousness but no free will he would be one evil dude……

  80. 80
    Andre says:

    Unwilling Recipient….

    Read this;

    http://organizations.utep.edu/.....el_bat.pdf

  81. 81
    Eugen says:

    Could anybody give opinion on:

    For the soul of every living thing is in the hand of God,

    Job 12:10

  82. 82
    News says:

    “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?” 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?

  83. 83
    velikovskys says:

    news:

    “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?”

    Eight pound babies are being chopped up?

  84. 84
    Silver Asiatic says:

    velikovskys

    That’s how they do what are called partial birth abortions.

  85. 85
    Zachriel says:

    COREEN COSTELLO from Agoura, California. In April 1995, seven months pregnant with her third child, Coreen and her husband Jim found out that a lethal neuromuscular disease had left their much-wanted daughter unable to survive. Its body had stiffened and was frozen, wedged in a transverse position. In addition, amniotic fluid had puddled and built up to dangerous levels in Coreen’s uterus. Devout Christians and opposed to abortion, the Costellos agonized for over two weeks about their decision and baptized the fetus in utero. Finally, Coreen’s increasing health problems forced them to accept the advice of numerous medical experts that the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) was, indeed, the best option for Coreen’s own health, and the abortion was performed. Later, in June 1996, Coreen gave birth to a healthy son.
    http://amptoons.com/blog/2003/.....abortions/

  86. 86
    Joe says:

    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.

  87. 87
    Mapou says:

    Joe:

    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, 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.

  88. 88
    velikovskys says:

    SA:

    That’s 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?

  89. 89
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Vel

    Eight pound babies are legally terminated by partial birth abortions

    Yes

    for the crime of not being born?

    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”.

  90. 90
    Zachriel says:

    MAUREEN MARY BRITELL from Sandwich, Massachusetts. Maureen and her husband Andrew, practicing Catholics, were expecting their second child in early 1994 when, at six months’ gestation, a sonogram revealed that the fetus had anencephaly. No brain was developing, only a brain stem. Experts at the New England Medical Center in Boston confirmed that the fetus the Britells had named Dahlia would not survive. The Britells’ parish priest supported their decision to induce labor and terminate the pregnancy. During the delivery, a complication arose and the placenta would not drop. The umbilical cord had to be cut, aborting the fetus while still in delivery in order to prevent serious health risks for Maureen. Dahlia had a Catholic funeral.
    http://amptoons.com/blog/2003/.....abortions/

  91. 91
    velikovskys says:

    SA:

    Yes

    Where?

    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?

    None,what fault did the born mother commit to make it legal to kill her?

  92. 92
    unwilling participant says:

    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.

  93. 93
    Mapou says:

    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.

  94. 94
    unwilling participant says:

    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.

  95. 95
    Joe says:

    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.

  96. 96
    Mapou says:

    Joe:

    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.

    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.

  97. 97
    Joe says:

    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.

  98. 98
    Mapou says:

    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.

  99. 99
    Joe says:

    Mapou:

    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.

    Other animals have that

  100. 100
    Mapou says:

    Joe:

    Other animals have that

    You don’t know that and you have no way of knowing that. Sorry.

  101. 101
    Joe says:

    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.

  102. 102
    Dionisio says:

    #81 Eugen

    Could anybody give opinion on:

    For the soul of every living thing is in the hand of God,

    Job 12:10

    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:

    12:1–14:22 Job’s 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

    12:4–6 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: “Shouldn’t wisdom be found among the aged?” The verse is irony aimed at the counselors who are old but have not become wise

    12:13–25 In this unit of poetry Job expounds the doctrine of God’s 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 “forgiven” by His creatures. But throughout this book, even when Job is raging over his suffering and suggesting doubts about God’s 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 Zophar’s question in 11:7, “Can you find out the deep things of God?” The poem may also be a reply to Eliphaz’s hymn in 5:1–26, where only good things happen to good people, an idea proved false in this stanza.

    Related biblical reference:

    Acts 17:28 (ESV)
    for ‘In Him we live and move and have our being’;
    [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 Job’s answer to Zophar’s 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 Shaddai—the Almighty.

  103. 103
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

    None,what fault did the born mother commit to make it legal to kill her?

    I don’t understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers?

  104. 104
    velikovskys says:

    SA:

    Try google, bing or yahoo search. Term: “Late term abortion”.

    Then click “Images”.

    We were talking about partial birth which is illegal In the US,no exceptions.

    I don’t understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers?

    Deliberately no one, she just would be collateral damage.

Leave a Reply