Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

In defense of sonnikke, whose post I think was misconstrued by SLPx:Sonnike appeared to be referring to the brand of atheist evolutionist perhaps better described as being an adherent of "scientism," which is the worldview in which science is given exhalted significance and comes to provides a source of spiritual solace and meaning in a world taken to be devoid of any higher power. See the Scientific American monthly column, "the Sceptic," which is an open forum for this quasi-religious view of science. In this sense, sonnikke's description was narrowly accurate. As a Christian and scientist who accepts aspects of micro and macro evolutionary processes as fundamental parts of God's universe, I know that many "evolutionists" are closer to me than to the above.What bothers me more was that the treatment of sonnikke's view of the creationist worldview was rather biased. I do not see how SLPx can say with certainty that there are no absolute morals and values, particularly since he/she has acknowledged that the existence of God is at least debatable (and therefore of finite probability). The idea of a God (who we both acknowledge has a finite probability of existence) who loves us is not irrational. If anything, one would say such an idea is but a reflection of the human cultural underpinning of parent-child affection.I will not respond to SLPx's mocking of God, because that was just plain stupid.

Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.It doesn't make any sense scientifically, or linguistically. Apart from going against established religion, it also goes against Holocaust teaching, which emphasizes the difference between man and animal. It also goes against common sense knowledge.
It makes evolutionists look like they are completely out of touch with society and reality. If you can't find a significant enough difference between animals and humans to warrant putting them in different categories, then you must simply not be using observation as your source of knowledge.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.M: To bad it was originally proposed by christians and supported by believing christians. But given that there is no evidence for god induced creation, how can there be evidence that humans are the crown?S:
It doesn't make any sense scientifically, or linguistically.M: Why not scientifically? We are composed of the same chemicals as everything other living being. Linguistics are irrelevant to the issue.S:
Apart from going against established religion,M: Like the earth not being flat?S:
it also goes against Holocaust teaching, which emphasizes the difference between man and animal.M:???S:
It also goes against common sense knowledge.M: It used to be common knowledge in France that tying your left testicle off with rope would help in conceiving male children.S:
It makes evolutionists look like they are completely out of touch with society and reality.M: Quantum mechanics are also non-intuitive, seem "out of touch with reality" and are poorly understood by "society". Guess people should give up on that science to? Or should all science be determined by the personal incredulity of the religous fundamentalist?S:
If you can't find a significant enough difference between animals and humans to warrant putting them in different categories, then you must simply not be using observation as your source of knowledge.M: Ok, if SLPx is so blind then why don't you give him (and me) a comprehensive list of the biological and chemical distinctions between humans and other animals that you claim are so obvious.cheers,
M

Hi zipzip (no, I'm not stalking you on the boards...),Would you care to take a shot at defining "absolute moral values"? Specific cross-cultural examples would be helpful. For instance, what are the absolute moral values shared between the !kung hunter, Fiji Island fisherman, Nepalese monk, Amazonian swidden agriculturalist, US stock broker, French missionary, Russian university student, Berber nomad, and Chinese peasant?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.

​

As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.

​

[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

---

​

I disagree. The information would have been pre-coded in the DNA, so it was not "new", simply unused...that's why it was still a guppy and not a shark.

​

As far as the barrier....it ....is....HUGE....Impassable.

​

---

The ToE does not, nor has it ever, suggested that a guppy would change to a shark in a few generations, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Therefore, this is yet another strawman, drawn from your Creationist cartoon versiopn of the ToE.It would do you well to actually get some kind of grounding in basic Biology, you know.Also, we are not asking you to tell us about the barrier...we want to know the MECHANISM or the description of the PROCESS of this alleged barrier to macroevolution.Macroevolution is microevolution on a longer time scale.Why can't small changes accumulate over time to equal big changes?That is what you are claiming and that is what you must demonstrate.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Ever hear of lungfish?

​

---

​

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=69
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
yeah, and it was a lungfish "400 million" years ago too...what's your point?

​

---

My point is, as Percy said, that Lungfish have characteristics of both mammals and amphibians.Tell us; what is your definition of a transitional? What characteristics would you, if you would see them, would convince you that yes, this is a transitional fossil between two species?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.

​

It doesn't make any sense scientifically, or linguistically. Apart from going against established religion, it also goes against Holocaust teaching, which emphasizes the difference between man and animal. It also goes against common sense knowledge.
It makes evolutionists look like they are completely out of touch with society and reality. If you can't find a significant enough difference between animals and humans to warrant putting them in different categories, then you must simply not be using observation as your source of knowledge.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

What do you have against animals, Syamsu?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi zipzip (no, I'm not stalking you on the boards...),

​

Would you care to take a shot at defining "absolute moral values"? Specific cross-cultural examples would be helpful. For instance, what are the absolute moral values shared between the !kung hunter, Fiji Island fisherman, Nepalese monk, Amazonian swidden agriculturalist, US stock broker, French missionary, Russian university student, Berber nomad, and Chinese peasant?

---

Leave that stockbroker out and I might take a stab at that....

YES, finally some people from the opposite side have shown up It really does sicken the heart to think that some people see themselves as nothing more than a beast (animal)...God is very clear about the fact that we ARE the crown of His creation, and NOT a beast.To honestly believe we are just a slightly more advanced ape.....well...what can I say, their eyes our blind, their mind is deceived.We love and we hate, we design and we destroy, we birth and we bury, we conquer and we are conquered, we believe and we doubt, we laugh and we cry, we create...WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

We eat and breath, sweat and defecate, are born and die. We have cells and blood and nerves and bones and organs. Like the apes, we have hands and feet and body hair. We reproduce and suckle our young like any mammal. We are fauna just like any other fauna on the planet.--Percy

S:
We love and we hate, we design and we destroy,M: So do apes and monkeysS:
we birthM: And other animals do not give birth?S: and we buryM: neandertals buried their dead...S:, we conquer and we are conquered,M: So do other primatesS: we believe and we doubt,M: How do you know other animals don't have doubts?S: we laugh and we cry,M: Hmmm lots of other primates laugh and cryS: we create...M: So do other primates...so do crowsS:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

S:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!

​

M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

---

Mammuthus, are you getting paranoid my hairy, betusked friend? Perhaps this wouldn't be the time to tell that joke about the nun, the policeman, & Cyrano de Bergerac. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

It's not the point to make a comprehensive list, that humans and animals are distinct should be held as self-evident similar to that humans are equal should be held as self-evident. The implication here is of course that those who would argue the opposite are not merely wrong but are lying. People who want to put humans and animals in one group, typically also want to change morality. Lying would neccessarily lead to changing morality, and although this is not proof they are lying, the evidence is in accordance with them lying.I think your response shows you don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, I think you adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of very questionable ideas through the ruthless struggle for debatingpoints.The article I recently referenced in the post about the anti-evolutionist Thomas Paine surprisingly coincides with much of what's argued here. You should read that, and maybe some books about the Holocaust like Klaus Fischer's "The 12 year reich"."the rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (Klaus Fischer in a letter to an evolutionist on talk.origins)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
It's not the point to make a comprehensive list, that humans and animals are distinct should be held as self-evident similar to that humans are equal should be held as self-evident.M: It is the point. It is not "self-evident". There are no significant biological distinctions between humans and other animals that would justify separating humans from the rest of earths lifeforms. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that there are in fact such differences...I am asking you to prove a positive. "self-evident" is an assertion of equal merit to "it is self evident that the earth is a big blue banana".S:
The implication here is of course that those who would argue the opposite are not merely wrong but are lying.M: No, you are implying that anyone who disagrees with your religous belief is lying.Seople who want to put humans and animals in one group, typically also want to change morality.M: Have any evidence for this or is this another one of those "self-evident" thingies?S: Lying would neccessarily lead to changing morality, and although this is not proof they are lying, the evidence is in accordance with them lying.M: Completely illogical and unrelated to humans being animals.S:
I think your response shows you don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, I think you adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of very questionable ideas through the ruthless struggle for debatingpoints.M: I think your response shows that anyone that opposes you will be considered 1) a liar 2) immoral 3) and (as taken from your next example) a nazi by you. But that is irrelevant to the fact that humans are animals.S:
The article I recently referenced in the post about the anti-evolutionist Thomas Paine surprisingly coincides with much of what's argued here. You should read that, and maybe some books about the Holocaust like Klaus Fischer's "The 12 year reich".M: Thomas Paine argued that humans are animals? And your trying to associate me with the 3rd Reich is more a testament to your own lack of ethics or "morality" than mine. Oh and by the way, I live in Germany so don't lecture me on the what was done here.S:
"the rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (Klaus Fischer in a letter to an evolutionist on talk.origins)M: So I am supposed to accept an unsupported statement from a creationist at talkorigins as support for your contention? That is like saying "my mommy says I am right therefore I am."If you really want to know about eugenics (which is what you are actually referencing) read Daniel Kevles book In the name of Eugenics.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
In defense of sonnikke, whose post I think was misconstrued by SLPx:

​

Sonnike appeared to be referring to the brand of atheist evolutionist perhaps better described as being an adherent of "scientism," ...

---

Then perhaps Sonnike should have been more clear?

quote:

---

What bothers me more was that the treatment of sonnikke's view of the creationist worldview was rather biased. I do not see how SLPx can say with certainty that there are no absolute morals and values, particularly since he/she has acknowledged that the existence of God is at least debatable (and therefore of finite probability).

---

Very simply because there are many cultures that have claimed to have attained/been given/etc. 'absolute' morals and values from various deities and they most certainly do not all coincide.That is, that 'absolutes' come from a deity - the existence of which is debatable - and since different religions subscribe to different deities, each proclaiming theirs to be the one true deity (or the several true deities), and their 'absolutes' are not congruent, then it appears that there are no absolutes.

quote:

---

I will not respond to SLPx's mocking of God, because that was just plain stupid.

---

Truth hurts, I guess....