Babies teeth

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by paulewog
Good point, Bear

Ok, so, since we are animals, why didn't God create us with the rest of the animals. We aren't cattle, or beasts of the field, or something that creeps on the earth, or birds, or fish. Obviously we aren't, since we weren't created with them.

You also ignored or forgot or something the part in my post about dominion, authority, and responsbility. So apparently we are animals that are not greater at all, but we have dominion and authority and the responsbility to take caer of the whole world. Including our fellow animals.

Furthermore, Genesis 2 talks about the creation of man more in depth.

It's rather silly to say, "Well God didn't say we aren't animals, thus it is possible we are" when He told us exactly how He created us.... differently and seperate than the animals, and in His image.

Ya know what? God never TOLD us that Mary, Mary, Peter, and John had the RIGHT tomb. But not many people believe they went to the wrong one and found it empty.

God never TOLD us evolution wasn't true, but told us how He CREATED the world.

God never TOLD us that we aren't animals, but told us we WERE in His image....

So, if he doesn't explicity tell us, how does that make our use of science to fill the gaps wrong?

Man is in the image of God - how does that say man is not an animal?

Our bodies are like those of animals.  We reproduce.  We suffer disease. We require food.  Physically, there is no attribute that we have that cannot also be found in the animal kingdom.  In the face of that, it's a big call to turn around and say that we are not animals, don't you think?

And, by the way, if God created animals in His image, then they would have

1) Intellect
2) Emotions
3) Will.

They might have emotions, but they don't have an intellect and a will. They don't think, and they don't decide.

That's a big call too, in the face of evidence from studies with chimps, dolphins and other of the more intelligent animal species (including, apparently, crows!)  That said, I'm not trying to claim that they are in the image of God.  Just that you can't dismiss the intellectual capabilities of other species out of hand.

Cheers,

Prax.

 

Edited to add farewell.  Hey - my Mum brung me up good!

 

[TheBear]

I'm not in total agreement with that, Paul. Animals do have emotions such as fear, anger and others. I don't think they have the full range of emotions as humans do, but they do have emotions.

Intellect? You bet. There are plenty of examples of animals using tools. This takes some type of intellect. Highly developed communication between whales and between other animals, are definite signs of some type of intellect.

Will? Again, there are plenty examples where animals defend their territories, nests and offspring, even to the death. The salmon fight a literal upstream battle to ensure reproduction. Bucks do all kinds of willfull things to attract a mate.

These examples are just a few, off the top of my head. There are plenty more examples that demonstrate that animals have all three traits to some extent.

But, the animals do not have a soul. Animals are not moral. Animals do not have this thirst for knowledge of our natural world. These are all traits, exclusive to humans.


John

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Paul-

You dont really think God is a partially hairy biped do you?

When we are created in His image, that means we have a rational soul capable of freewill. We are not limited by our biological programming, although it does influence us if we let it.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Prax-

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I imagine that evolutionist have explanations, but the problem that I have is accepting their explanations on blind faith. I have faith in God, but it isn't blind.

 

[Jerry Smith]

s0uljah --

You acknowledge that you are not aware of some biological explanations. Not being aware of them, no one could expect you to accept them (at all, much less on blind faith). But, not being aware of them is also a good reason to withhold suspicion that they are incorrect. Another good reason to withhold that suspicion is that you might be aware that the methodology that produced those explanations has also produced many explanations that you are aware of and do accept.

It is silly to say "I reject evolution because I am not aware of the evolutionary explanation of the timing of baby teeth." I realize this isn't what you are saying, but your OP seems to hint more at that than anything else. Perhaps you were asking for an explanation of the developmental timing of baby teeth from an evolutionary perspective. If that's the case, your interest has gone very deep: this question doesn't hit on big principles, it asks for detail at a level that is irrelevant to many. The "short answers" will probably not satisfy you & will likely lead to more questions that may seem unsolvable to you now. If that is the point of your OP, you might consider taking a major in the biological sciences for the broad educational support that the detailed answers to this type of question will require.

If not an argument from incredulity, or a request for detailed scientific understanding of developmental biology - then what exactly where you getting at in your OP?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Prax-

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I imagine that evolutionist have explanations, but the problem that I have is accepting their explanations on blind faith. I have faith in God, but it isn't blind.

So what, i believe in science and have faith in it, and it isn't blind i can say the same thing you can.

 

[Marcel]

My definition of a human being is "a creative intelligent individual, and a work in progress from beginning to end." but that's from a philosophical perspective.

I think we're ultimately just very pretentious animals.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Prax-

Thanks for the reply.

S0uljah-

Welcome!

Yes, I imagine that evolutionist have explanations, but the problem that I have is accepting their explanations on blind faith. I have faith in God, but it isn't blind.

No one is asking you to accept any explanations on blind faith, and I think that that is fantastic.  You are free to look at the primary data yourself - everything in science is open to question - and see why it is that they've come to the conclusions that they have. 

(Aside: that said, I myself find scispeak to be a little bit mystifying.  Nonetheless, despite the jargon, the information is still there.)

Congrats on your offspring, BTW.  Kids are great!

 

Cheers,

Prax