Chimp to Man Ethics

nvxplorer · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. What I would suggest is that given the many holes and unanswered questions of Darwinian theory, the Biblical answer of Genesis 2:7 seems to better fit the available data.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Click to expand...

What data is indicated by that verse?

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

David Gould said:
However, the scientists who study this area - most of whom, by the way, are Christian - disagree.

50% of scientists are non-theists.

David Gould said:
So he would punish us by inflicting suffering on this person? Weird view of God you have there ...

You seem to have mistaken my words. I did not specify the manner of this punishment.

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

nvxplorer said:
What data is indicated by that verse?

Humankind was created, not descended from evolutionary ancestors.

Osiris · Jun 30, 2005

Osiris said:
I am kind of getting the notion that you think that if science is wrong, ID must be correct.

Matthew777 said:
I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. What I would suggest is that given the many holes and unanswered questions of Darwinian theory, the Biblical answer of Genesis 2:7 seems to better fit the available data.

And I think I was right...

You know Matthew, the world is far much bigger than just Evolution and ID... you are making a big mistake by thinking that it is just those two. I really see no holes in Evolution, but if you honestly believe there are, perhaps its just the honesty of evolutionists trying to prove wrong Evolution by testing it. By testing, the scientific method prevents (wrong information) from going into the theory.

On the other hand, if you don't see holes in Creationism, that is because it has been dishonestly been patched to make it fit with modern data. Creationism doesn't try to prove the bible wrong, on the contrary, it tries to prove the bible right. That little bits of (wrong information) that the scientific method filters out, Creationism does not. That is why you have different point of views in creationism.

Aeothen · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
50% of scientists are non-theists.

Do you have a source for that? (I'm not just being pedantic here; I'd really like to know.)

nvxplorer · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Humankind was created, not descended from evolutionary ancestors.

The verse says man was created from the dust of the ground. I'm not following you. How is that a conclusion from the data?

David Gould · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
50% of scientists are non-theists.

You realise that that means that 50% of them are theists?

You seem to have mistaken my words. I did not specify the manner of this punishment.

Oh, my bad - I thought you were linking it to the child not having a mind.

Does God habitually punish people on this earth? I mean, we have no record of him doing so since the events recorded in the Old Testament.

And you did not respond to my other point: why do you think this child would not have a mind?

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

Osiris said:
By testing, the scientific method prevents (wrong information) from going into the theory.

The past is not testable.

Osiris said:
On the other hand, if you don't see holes in Creationism, that is because it has been dishonestly been patched to make it fit with modern data.

Young earth creationism is the Devil, I am serious. As for day-age theory, I suggest that you read a book by Dr. Hugh Ross. I can honestly tell you that it is the best balance between what we observe in the physical world and what we believe from the Scriptures.

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

nvxplorer said:
The verse says man was created from the dust of the ground. I'm not following you. How is that a conclusion from the data?

I would say that the human person is a unique creature whose origin and uniqueness natural science cannot explain. One could just as rightly conclude, from the knowledge of the physical world that we have at the moment, that man was created.
The conclusion fits with the data.

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

David Gould said:
You realise that that means that 50% of them are theists?

That may be true. What I would like to know is how many scientists are old earth creationists. I've never seen a figure for this.

David Gould said:
Does God habitually punish people on this earth? I mean, we have no record of him doing so since the events recorded in the Old Testament.

Think of the Acts of the Apostles. God took the life of a man for giving less of his income to the Church than he had promised.

David Gould said:
why do you think this child would not have a mind?

Mind is more than matter.

David Gould · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
That is true. What I would like to know is how many scientists are old earth creationists. I've never seen a figure for this.

Not too many, I wouldn't think, considering that TE and YEC are the dominant views in the Christian community.

Think of the Acts of the Apostles. God took the life of a man for giving less of his income to the Church than he had promised.

Does that happen these days, though?

Mind is more than matter.

The options are:

1.) Matter is sufficient to generate mind. In which case, there is no problem.
2.) A soul is required to generate mind. Why do you think God would not grant this child a soul?

Osiris · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
The past is not testable.

The traces it leaves behind are, if you have been long enough in science debates you should know this.

tsk tsk

Young earth creationism is the Devil, I am serious. As for day-age theory, I suggest that you read a book by Dr. Hugh Ross. I can honestly tell you that it is the best balance between what we observe in the physical world and what we believe from the Scriptures.

I have come up with a better theory for ID myself, or at least I like it better.
But that is the thing though, ID theories are guesses from creativity!

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

Osiris said:
The traces it leaves behind are, if you have been long enough in science debates you should know this.

tsk tsk

The difference is that the past is not repeatable and therefore, we will never know for certain what exactly ocurred. This is where the purported divine inspiration of Scripture comes in to save the day.
Oftentimes, pre-history is a guessing game. When people do arrive at new knowledge, it is usually luck.

Osiris · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Mind is more than matter.

Mind is dependent on the brain (matter).
Its the same thing as saying software is more than hardware...

Hardware may be meaningless to you, but the software is what the hardware represents. In the same aspect, the brain may be meaningless to you, but the mind is only what the brain is represents.

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

Osiris said:
Mind is dependent on the brain (matter).

Perhaps, for the time being. In death, mind transcends matter.

Jet Black · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Perhaps, for the time being. In death, mind transcends matter.

ipse dixit.

Osiris · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Perhaps, for the time being. In death, mind transcends matter.

When the brain dies, the mind for that brain no longer exists.

What you are saying is that the Java Virtual Machine in my computer will transcend the hardware after the hardware no longer functions. The hardware is what makes the Virtual Machine become alive, not the other way around.

Matthew777 · Jun 30, 2005

Osiris said:
When the brain dies, the mind for that brain no longer exists.

When the human person dies, the body automatically loses significant weight.
One may consider that this is actually the soul fleeting.
Furthermore, one must also consider Luke 23:43.

Dexx · Jun 30, 2005

A chimp/human hybrid? Well donkeys and horses make mules. So i wouldnt be suprised if a chimp and human could produce viable offspring. I'm sure someones tried it at some point in the history of the world.

Now that we have invitro fertilisation it would be less morally repugnant. Some scientist somewhere must have tried to fertilize a chimp ovum with human sperm in a test tube.

This is an intriguing article:
http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/DaCapo.html

Tomk80 · Jun 30, 2005

Matthew777 said:
It would show that common ancestry could be possible.

I'm always wondering about these sort of statements, and personally think that they are completely idiotic. But that would just be me.

Think about it. If we identify the precise differences between man and chimp DNA, and we can mutate the DNA very precisely, so that we in fact create human DNA from chimp DNA, what have we shown? The only thing we've shown is that we can very precisely alter human and chimp DNA. We wouldn't have shown common ancestry in the slightest way.

Chimp to Man Ethics

Senior Contributor

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Übermensch

Active Member

Senior Contributor

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Übermensch

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Übermensch

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Jet Black

Guest

Übermensch

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency