Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[Beastt]

There is no sentient involved with a cow. You are doing them a favor to eat them.

You've admitted you know little about science and now you demonstrate that you know less about biology. Cattle absolutely are sentient and you do no one a favor when you eat them. It's bad for them, bad for you and bad for the ecology.

What you're doing here is demonstrating why I feel it is so vital that the myths of Christianity be defeated. The blatant cruelty and suffering which stem from such completely ridiculous beliefs is horrendous. If you take a neuron from a cow, a neuron from a chimp and a neuron from a human, you have the same kind of cell. You'd be unable to differentiate them under a microscope. All through the nervous system of any mammal you find a remarkable level of consistency from one mammal to the next. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that a cow, monkey, pig, goat, sheep or buffalo feels pain any less acutely than you do yourself. They show every sign of the same level of sentience you possess. You no more do any animal a favor by eating it than a lion would do you a favor by eating you. You are an animal, John. Your body is made from essentially the same types of cells. You have the same basic internal organs. Science is even showing that by making slight alterations to the genetics of a pig, the heart from a pig can be transplanted into a human.

Of course if humans would stop eating animals, far fewer would find their hearts in need of replacement but that's another thread.

Your comments here serve as a good example of the ignorance which results when one decides that they are obtaining knowledge through God, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Learn something about reality, John, and you'll become aware of the intense cruelty you bring to the world. Only if we know we're being cruel can we ever hope to defeat cruelty.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire​

 

[kangitanka]

You've admitted you know little about science and now you demonstrate that you know less about biology. Cattle absolutely are sentient and you do no one a favor when you eat them.

Well, it's obvious that JohnR7 doesn't know the definition of "sentience"

Just in case he doesn't get it, I'll spell it out

It's bad for them

It's bad for them because they DIE (oftentimes horribly, such as being skinned while still alive)

bad for you

Meat is not needed by the human body. Humans are primarily herbivores

and bad for the ecology.

Amazon rain forest (or the lack thereof) anyone?

 

[kangitanka]

Before "Creationism-Lazy Man's Science?" turns into a meat eater vs vegetarian debate Id like to invite Beastt and JohnR7 and anyone else interested to the Vegan, Vegetarian, Omnivore, Carnivore thread in the Ethics and Morality forum.

Thank you for your time and your non-thread derailment

 

[kopilo]

"I'm not a vegan because I love animals, I'm a vegan because I hate plants"

(Just to make it clear, I do not mean anything more then humour by quoting this, I am an omnivore but I do not take pride in eating meat and generally try to eat as many fresh vegetables, nuts, etc as possible. I'm also a supporter of (true) orgainically grown foods.)

 

[kopilo]

Meat is not needed by the human body. Humans are primarily herbivores

Unless you have allogies in which require you to eat meat in order to retain a healthy diet/body.

 

[kangitanka]

Unless you have allogies in which require you to eat meat in order to retain a healthy diet/body.

Go HERE
Please and thank you, so as to not further derail this thread
Oh, hey....You've been there!

 

[kopilo]

Go HERE
Please and thank you, so as to not further derail this thread
Oh, hey....You've been there!

sorry it was too tempting to not atempt.

 

[JohnR7]

Before "Creationism-Lazy Man's Science?" turns into a meat eater vs vegetarian debate

There is nothing to debate. Moses gives us the diet we are to eat. Science agrees. There is no arguement anywhere as far at the truth is concerned.

Moses does not say you have to eat this or you have to eat that. He just tell us what it is "lawfull" or what God has given us to eat.

If there are things they do not want to eat, then for consciousness sake, they should not eat them. But for me, I think that Moses makes it clear what we should or should not eat.

Romans 14:17
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Moses gives us the diet we are to eat.

Act 10:10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
Act 10:11 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
Act 10:12 and there were in it all {kinds of} four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
Act 10:15 Again a voice {came} to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no {longer} consider unholy."

oops. appears that Moses spoke to the Jews since God overruled Levitical Law in Peter's vision.

There is no arguement anywhere as far at the truth is concerned.

only SDA see no arguments in the issue, for to them it has been settled by continuing revelation.

 

[JohnR7]

You've admitted you know little about science

I do not admit to anything. Let me ask you one question are you here to insult me or are you here to have a conversation? Because before we can have any sort of a conversation we have to deal with your insults and lack of respect first.

Let me give everyone here a clue. Acting in a way so that people do not want to be around you, does not make you the winner of the debate. All it means is that people do not want to discuss it with you anymore.

 

[Beastt]

There is nothing to debate. Moses gives us the diet we are to eat. Science agrees. There is no arguement anywhere as far at the truth is concerned.

Moses does not say you have to eat this or you have to eat that. He just tell us what it is "lawfull" or what God has given us to eat.

If there are things they do not want to eat, then for consciousness sake, they should not eat them. But for me, I think that Moses makes it clear what we should or should not eat.

Romans 14:17
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Please, John; we're attempting not to derail this thread. If you wish to pursue this then please, accept the invitation to the other thread. I'd love to completely smash your ridiculous claims right here but to do so would be improper. Please visit the other thread where I can soundly thrash your feeble arguments without derailing this thread. You've been asked nicely more than once.

You can take the coward's way out, admit you're wrong or click here.

 

[JohnR7]

I hate plants

Why, what did they ever do to you?

 

[JohnR7]

I'd love to completely smash your ridiculous claims

I have no "claims", I just go by what the Bible says. If you want to fight against the truth and the God of the Bible then go right ahead. I hope you do not mind if I get out of the way for when the sparks start to fly.

 

[kopilo]

I have no "claims", I just go by what the Bible says. If you want to fight against the truth and the God of the Bible then go right ahead. I hope you do not mind if I get out of the way for when the sparks start to fly.

How about getting out of the way by clicking here?

Just a thought.

BTW those evil plants I tell you, growing in the garden one day, robbing a bank the next.

 

[JohnR7]

Please, John; we're attempting not to derail this thread.

This thread was derailed from the beginning.
Calling "Creationism - Lazy Man's science" is a flame.
There is nothing "lazy" about creationists or their science.
The thread is based on a false premise.

 

[Beastt]

I do not admit to anything. Let me ask you one question are you here to insult me or are you here to have a conversation? Because before we can have any sort of a conversation we have to deal with your insults and lack of respect first.

I'm here to have a conversation. But you've made it abundantly clear that you're only here to make blanket, unsupported statements, proclaim you can support them, and then cower away when asked to present your evidence. That's called lying, John and I find it quite distasteful. It's a blatant display of disrespect toward everyone in the thread.

Let me give everyone here a clue. Acting in a way so that people do not want to be around you, does not make you the winner of the debate.

Something you should know from personal experience.

All it means is that people do not want to discuss it with you anymore.

You stop discussing when people start asking you to support your statements. You seem to think that you have the exclusive right to make statements and have everyone simply accept whatever you say without the slightest hint of support. You're not special, John. You're held to the same standards as everyone else. If you're going to make statements, make sure you can provide support for them. If you'd like to discuss the other topic, then do so in the appropriate thread. If you just want to muddy up this thread with comments which are completely ridiculous and unsupportable, then I think the forum rules reflect the preferences of everyone else here.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is nothing "lazy" about creationists or their science.


for not being lazy there appears to be an abnormally large number of new posters that come through here, posting Hovindisms, demonstrating that they know nothing about the science they criticize then disappearing when it is obvious that they are ignorant of the issues.

that appears to me to be intellectual laziness, especially when people seem unable to spend even a few minutes googling to see what the issues are ....

 

[kopilo]

This thread was derailed from the beginning.
Calling "Creationism - Lazy Man's science" is a flame.
There is nothing "lazy" about creationists or their science.
The thread is based on a false premise.

The title reffers to the question being asked in the OP.

 

[kopilo]

BTW I read somewhere that anything that has to have "science" attached to it in order to state is a science means that it proberly is not.. This of course goes for my chosen profession as well Information Technology/Information Science.

Therefore it might be just a hunch but maybe creatisim is a belief rather then a science, or maybe a bit of both. This might also mean that evolution is not a science but still a scientific theory...

 

[Beastt]

This thread was derailed from the beginning.
Calling "Creationism - Lazy Man's science" is a flame.
There is nothing "lazy" about creationists or their science.
The thread is based on a false premise.

Perhaps that's fitting when one considers that the very concept of "creation science" is a false premise.

Drawing preconceived conclusions without credible evidence and then going in search of evidence which might be twisted to meet the conclusion isn't science, John. Science is following the evidence no matter where that evidence leads. If it leads to God then fine. If it leads to Satan, that's fine too. If it always leads to purely naturalistic processes, completely devoid of concepts like good and evil, that's also fine. The base requirement is that one allows the evidence to provide the path. Anytime someone picks a goal and then attempts to construct a path by picking and choosing only those bits of evidence convenient to the task, it's not science. Yet, this is exactly what "creation science" does. So it's not science.

Why do you object to a thread based on a false premise when the topic of the thread itself, ("creation science"), is a false premise?

If you have any questions about derailling threads, please consult the form rules. They apply to everyone.