Apes Is People Too

_{Barry Arrington

April 21, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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?

Comments

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?Collin_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

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?Joe_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

How does materialism undermine itself? Let me count the ways....Jim Smith_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I am afraid that I must disagree. Their consciousness may be at a different level than ours, but it clearly exists.unwilling participant_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Here is something that is sure to rile a few. Animals, including apes and our pets, are all meat robots. They have no consciousness.Mapou_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Piotr:
I extrapolate from the behaviour of intelligent agents known to me.
And what did they do to help?Joe_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

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! :)bornagain77_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

I extrapolate from the behaviour of intelligent agents known to me.Don Pedro_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
Of course if God existed and had really wanted to help them, he could have done better.
How do you know?Joe_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

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.Don Pedro_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

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?Collin_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

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.Collin_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

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/2013-12-friend-foe-benign-bacteria-evolve.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_summ.jsp?cntn_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." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-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/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.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.fieldofscience.com/2011/03/on-origins-of-smallpox-where-and-when.htmlbornagain77_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

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?Joe_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

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.Joe_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

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. StephenSteRusJon_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

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. StephenSteRusJon_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

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/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
bornagain77_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

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/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.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/Lincoln-Darwin-More-Alike-Than-Youd-Might-Think-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/questions/answer/darwin-did-death-charles-daughter-annie-turn-him-against-god-christianity
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/theology/abraham-lincolns-path-to-divine-providence-11599728.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/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&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/ernst-chain-antibiotics-pioneer/
bornagain77_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Don Pedro is another crank angry with God...... been there done that have the t-shirt.Andre_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

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.Dionisio_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Andre, Oh, yes, I'm sure Yersinia pestis is of some great (if unknown) use to fleas. It's bad luck if God had to kill millions of humans in a rather nasty way to help his chosen insects. So perhaps you know why why did not send the Israelites vaccines and antibiotics to protect them from the deadly microbes he had himself created? Yeah, I know, quarantine is better than nothing, but noblesse oblige: an omnipotent designer could have been more helpful.Don Pedro_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

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..... pleaseAndre_{April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

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.Don Pedro_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

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.Timaeus_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

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?Timaeus_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

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.Seversky_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

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/2015/04/madness_chimps095461.htmlbornagain77_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

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/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.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/jun2012/nhgri-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-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#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? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/non-probabilistic-design-arguments/#comment-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/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-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/releases/2015/03/150316102112.htm
Needless to say, this finding is NOT what is expected under Darwinian premises.bornagain77_{April 22, 2015
April
04
Apr
22
22
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply