Posted on 02/04/2002 2:32:02 PM PST by RobRoy
I believe that most, if not all of the threads I've seen on this subject are little more than an army of straw men. It's like asking the question, if Abraham Lincoln arm wrestled Plato, who would win? The answer of course is "who cares, and how would we know, even if we did care?"
Before I can have a passionate opinion on this subject, I have to ask two basic questions first: 1. What is this thing we call life and, 2. Why is it so sacred and precious?
And here are the corresponding answers:
1. Life is merely what could now be called highly sophisticated nano-technology, or a "Biological Machine."
2. Life isn't precious or sacred at all (and I believe Christianity supports this).
A Biological Machine (BM) is merely a collection of "non-living" atoms collected in such a way as to create a more complex organism, or machine, which is self replicating and self repairing. You could use this description for the Earth or the sun, but maybe not an individual rock, since it has no moving parts, other than those spinning within each atom - and if you break it even a little, it stays broken. Even Mars or Jupiter could be called living things using this definition, considering their flowing atmospheres and constantly moving magma, volcanoes, etc.
It is true that many groups and subgroups of BM seem to include some form of intelligence. But quite often, especially in the example of plants and insects, this is nothing more than the execution of a very simple computer program. In others, it is a very complex form of AI, as in the higher primates, whales and, yes - man. BM's can be very sophisticated. Take the human BM. Like a nano-machine, it ingests materials containing a myriad of molecules, all containing different combinations of atoms. This human BM then uses some molecules as-is and breaks down others to extract only the atoms it needs to produce the materials it needs, like blood, muscle, a spleen, or even another human. What it doesn't need, it passes out as waste (poop), much as a gold mine has massive mounds of it's own poop. This waste material is then used as input to other BM's, and so it goes.
A BM also uses some of these atoms to provide itself energy. This means constant chemical reactions to keep the ol' atoms spinning and convert the atoms from input molecules into molecules needed by the BM.. That's why BM's have a warm core or, in the case of plants, depend solely on radioactive stimulation from the sun. This would also imply some sort of evolution as energy is consumed and depleted. Much as a '56 Nash may rust away in a field, so evolution works it's curse on all of creation (the universe, for evolutionsts). But rust is not what created the Nash.
I am only scratching the surface of this concept here, but it begs the question, why is life so precious or sacred anyway. As I stated above, it isn't, EXCEPT… Except for man - not because of his BM body, but because of what that body contains.
Some of the new drone airplanes are so sophisticated in their execution of decisions as to fool the uneducated into believing they contain a pilot. However, a fighter plane is far more valuable than one of the new drone planes for two reasons. One is minor - it costs more. The other is the core of the difference: The fighter contains a human. If a drone is lost, we build another one. If a fighter is lost with it's pilot, an irreplaceable human BM has been destroyed.
So now think of the human BM as the fighter plane. That is, it contains something that no other living thing - be it animal (a monkey) or mineral (a solar system or planet) - contains. That thing is the human spirit. No, I'm not talking about the mind, memory or intelligence -, these are results of the wrinkles on a small part (the brain) of the BM contained in its upper extremity - it is a mere organ and a part of the BM. No, I'm talking about the eternal spirit that ALL human BM's poses. Without that spirit, a human BM is, as are all animals, so much meat and bone. And all that meat is just a very complex and sophisticated Biological Machine.
From my perspective, that makes all non human life nothing more than members of a group I call "Natural Resources," to be consumed, managed and otherwise exploited for the pleasure of man, who exists solely for the pleasure of God.
In a sense, we, and the universe we occupy, are Gods ant farm. And our bodies are to be treated with the respect the Bible instructs - Not for the preservation of the body itself, but because it is the "temple" of the spirit. It was created by God as the Spirits Earthly dwelling place, and it's span in years is not to be reduced by man for trivial reasons.
I think the only reason we have a hard time believing the trillions, in number and type, of BM's with which we come into contact every day are not actually created by God is that we have accepted their, and our existence as "natural" for as long as we have been able to call ourselves "conscious" - and because God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to neglect the application of a serial number or manufacturers logo. He must've thought it unimportant (and maybe entertaining to boot). Reminds me of the old joke, "how do you keep an idiot in suspense…"
To the creationist, among whom I count myself, I challenge you to show me anything I have written here that contradicts anything written in His Word.
To the evolutionist, a similar challenge. Does any scientific "proof" currently available contradict anything I have posited here?
The real question for me is, did God create the universe and what we call "life," or is there no God and our very existence is just coincidence. I'm sorry folks, but this is not an intellectual question as some would have you believe. You can no more answer this question with your limited "human meat" BM brain than can your dog. Go to a mountaintop, your car, your closet or a skating rink and call out to God, sincerely, and see what answer you get. Then go from there.
Again, Hellen Keller was considered an animal because she was totally denied the abilitity to communicate with the humans around her. All she could do was grunt or scream when pain was inflicted upon her. She was considered an animal.
A dog is unable to talk or write because of simular physical limitation. But just like the poor human child denied the ability to communicate, are you absolutly sure that it does not have intelligence?
Since the two of you are unable to communicate, how do you know?
At least it brings a response, but they just don't seem to be interested in messing with us.
Hank
BTW, Hunble, I was going to remark about your screen name, which I mistook for "Humble" thinking you had chosen one of the wonderful characters for Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, but now that I see I am mistaken, what is the souce of your screen name?
Also, BTW, I mean no offense by the comments above.
Hank
I not only believe the answer to this question is YES, but I believe that this is a major stone in the foundation of Christianity, for without it, Christianity would be reduced to a religion where your salvation depends on me telling you about Christ, and yet the Bible clearly teaches that every persons salvation is ultimately his own responsibility. And when it comes to God, responsibility and authority go hand in glove.
Many have said that God didn't create man, but rather, man Created God. Well, in some peoples limited attempts at reasoning, that makes sense. But when analyzed more deeply, several questions pop up.
First, the statement implies that man has a need (internal desire) for God, or we wouldn't create religion at all. Ok, I'll buy that. So to go further, I understand we have a need for food. How long would a man last if he never felt a need for food before he starved to death...
I also understand that man has a need for sex. OK, how long would the human race last if the concept of sex never crossed anyones mind...
It is as if our creator put into us a desire for the very things we need to survive. AND THAT INCLUDES A NEED TO COMMUNE WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY HIM.The problem is, these needs can be met in ways other than their original intended use. To meet the food need, we have glutony, which results in an epidemic of adult onset diabetes in this country today. To meet the need for sex,we have adultery, prostitution, pornography (I consider homosexuality a form of mental ilness and not aplicable here) which result in a myriad of problems (physical, emotional, and societal) too lengthy to specify here. To satisfy our need for the one true God to guide us through what will give us the most joyfull life, we have false religions, drugs and gross overindulgence in the other "need" areas (see above for example).
The difference between the food need, the sex need and the God need is that with food, if you don't eat, you die fairly quickly. Without the sex need and participation in the activity, the youngest generation would be the last. Without the God need being met through the one true God, society can actually last quite a while longer. Not indefinitely, mind you, but quite a while. It reminds me of the analogy of boiling a frog alive.
The reason all of the above is even an issue is that accepting God's existence means giving up athority in our life. We can't always do what we want. We are like spoiled children who often decide to cross the street even though dad said it's dangerous. We may not get killed the first time, and that just empowers us more sometimes.
But I am onto the concept of sin, which is definitely way outside the scope of your question...
And as usual, I typed an 'n' instead of an 'm' and did not catch it until it was too late.
Now back to the topic:
Hellen Keller was an animal with no concept of intelligence according to your criteria?
I don't. The people who felt that way were flawed in their thinking, at least from the Christian perspective, which is the only one I can respect. I would ask those people a simple set of questions with simple answers:
1. Who did Christ die for? All human-kind.
2. Who was created in His image? All Human-kind.
3. Who has authority over all nature? All human-kind.
4. Is Hellen Keller a human? Yes.
5. Is a dog or a dolphin a human? No.
6. Other than as an allegory on how to treat humans, does the bible say anything about the way men should treat animals, for the animals sake? NO.
Therefore, as a human, I am not concerned one whit about the welfare of any non-human BM, other than to ensure, when necessary, their abundant supply for the use and pleasure of human BMs.
That said, I think that anyone who tortures animals for the pleasure of it is one sick individual. But he should suffer no consequences other than paying others for the loss of their animals, and maybe for pain and suffering to the animals owner, since part of the pre-programming in our human BM causes us to automatically grow attached (yes, even me) to these animals which can mimic, to some degree, human emotional and physical responses, to the point that we interpret this to mean that they "feel" the same as us.
As you can see, I draw the line at "human" which, by the way was what prompted the animal rights activist to call me a name. It was beyond his comprehension.
Well, I'll give you this, creation is constantly changing. It doesn't work as well as it would have had fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil never been touched by our forefather and mother, but I think God did a pretty good job.
Of course my opinion, like any humans, is irrelevant and steeped in ignorance to the point of being an absurd statement without reason. It's like a three year old telling Donald trump that he thiks Don was wise to invest in real estate.
That's nice, little boy, now have some more strained carrots...
Now that we have returned to "my books is better than your book" once again, I shall depart this discussion.
However, think about it please. I did introduce some interesting twists into the topic.
We are one with this belief. I will sometimes try to persuade young people with whom I have a good relationship, but usually in the form of planting individual seeds of thought 8^>
I'm sorry if something I said fell into that category. But I agree, it was most interesting. Thank you.
BTW, unless two people are of one mind on practically everything, it will eventually come down to that, in some way.
Hank
But when he joins in the discussion, I must bow out.
As much fun as it is, it is like talking to someone that honestly loves Socialism. No matter how hard you try, the concept of logic is simply beyond them.
And to go beyond those simple statements is much more than I will ever be willing to go.
But Medved - you always bring a smile to my face!
Some Christians do treat animals as essentially human. Was it St. Francis? One a wild young man, but had a change of heart later. Do good and cause no injury. Do not even seek revenge.
I absolutly love medved! Honestly!But when he joins in the discussion, I must bow out.
As much fun as it is, it is like talking to someone that honestly loves Socialism. No matter how hard you try, the concept of logic is simply beyond them.
And to go beyond those simple statements is much more than I will ever be willing to go.
Sounds like you mainly go in for platitudes, generalizations, and ad-hominems rather than real scientific investigation or logic. Moreover, it doesn't sound like you ever really tried to run any of the basic arguments involving catastrophism or any of Velikovsky's theses to ground and examine them logically. I have.
There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface temperature of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers, despite being ridiculous.
Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat taken in and given out should equal eachother.
I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's version, but not that of Sagan. Astronomers have posted oficial position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain why they should not all be fired for failing to oversee the proper manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least four (instruments were not all the same).
And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 ñ 0.07, which was later revised upward to 0.80 ñ 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02."Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E 4 0 sigma * theta = --------- b a^2 should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance 0from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone."In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value] of 0.76 ñ 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).
"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W [watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 ñ 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the albedo of 0.76 ñ 0.1; this is the most probable value."
Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct method:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02."doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of the following things, or something entirely like one of them:
a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.
b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a ratio of the light intensities.
Taylor also mentions the indirect method:
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone. He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing. He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history, and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most probable" value.
He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the best we're likely to get for a long time:
A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away 100% of the raw data.
That's no way to do science.
... Make sense? ...Yes. I think so. Thank you for the clarification. But I wouldn't want to call such a description Christian, or at least not Christian in any orthodox tradition: the body is sacred in the Christian tradition, hence the incarnation, bodily resurrection etc., etc.
I will re-iterate that I do think someone who intentionally tortures animals has a screw loose, but the way he treats animals is a problem not for the animals sake, but because of what it reveals about him.
Likewise, the man that doesn't care for his animals properly is like the man that doesn't care for his farm, his home, his car and in general keeps everything in disrepair.
Like everything else, the animals are mere personal property that the wise man will keep maintained.
Yes, I agree. It's kind of like saying, I wouldn't call believing the earth is round as "Christian," but one can be a Christian and believe the earth is flat or round.
My main point is that I cannot find anything in His word that says what I suggest is not true. Kind of like, when some argued that the world could be round and not the center of the universe, the Church ex-communicated them when, in fact, there was nothing in the bible that said it was. It was merely the Churches miss-interpretation of his word.
Those round-earthers were busting paradigms, as I am. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong or right. I just want to nail down not only what the Word says is sacred, but how, and in what way - and how have we altered it to mean more than it actually says, as the Earth-is-the-center people did back then.
Only he and religious people used to be catastrophists. It seems everyone is now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.