Two questions for Evolutionists and Creationists

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.

I have read two of Velikovsky's books - Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval. Both riveting, for me at least. I find it amazing that he was considered absurd by the scientific community, while just a few decades later, the uniformitarians have all but died out, most of what he posited, from a catastrophists viewpoint has been supported by new discoveries in our solar system.

Only he and religious people used to be catastrophists. It seems everyone is now.

>>(There is an intentional flaw in this argument. Do you see it?)<<

I'll take a stab at it. It is the subject of time itself. Since I see time as a part of creation, I see God as existing outside of time. That is why I don't interpret the concept of "eternity" as time unending but, rather, a place outside of time as we know it.

So when you say God or anything "always" existed, your really saying they have existed since time was created or your saying they simply exist - as God described himself as "before the heavens and Earth were, I Am." What an odd mixture of tense in a sentence. I think this is one of the most powerful statements in the entire Bible. Oh, and on a side note, Christ also claimed to be God when he said "I am the I am."

Anyway, trying to describe when things, or God began in a paradigm that assumes time is the one constant drastically limits the scope of the question. If the assumption is correct, fine. If it's wrong, then the question is nonsensical, like asking a single man, "is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?"

The whole problem, ultimately, is that we are the equivalent of chickens trying to figure out when the barn was built. Chicken Run notwithstanding, it is a waste for God to even try to explain it to us intellectually (the limited brain, that is, as opposed to the vastly superior spirit).

most of what he posited, from a catastrophists viewpoint has been supported by new discoveries in our solar system

A small detour from my present state of grappling with palingenesis:

Velikovsky was incorrect as far as his predictions of conditions on the planet Venus. When the Russians landed a couple of probes on the surface and found, not oil, not even burning mud, but intensely hot, dry rock bathed in sulfuric acid fumes, Velikovsky's day was over.

However, his high aptitude for research and speculation is uncommon.

For reasons unknown, todays headlines contain an article about whether there are other universes that cannot interact with ours and can never be detected. Just before the Big Bang there was a quantum instability. Such quantum instabilities must be happening all the time everywhere. Does each quantum instability give rise to a universe with some attributes --physical laws-- that may be the same as the laws of our universe or [usually] different? How many universes are beginning right now based on quantum instabilities within our own universe and the countless other universes? Can a universe is spawned from our own universe be detected? How many universes are there, and how many would be friendly to life as we know it?

Alan Guth asked some of these questions in his book "The Inflationary Universe" several years ago. I find it disquieting that one of the worldclass cosmologists can ask such questions and then say we can never know. It is like forming concepts of God, whether anthropocentric Christian models, or Unknowable Pagan models. Other universes are unknowable. What is the Cantor order of infinity of the number of other universes?

>>I find it disquieting that one of the worldclass cosmologists can ask such questions and then say we can never know.<<

Yeah 8^>

And if the Lord waits a couple hundred more years, maybe this guys book will spawn a new "religion." I think that's the way most man made religions work: "Some guy smarter than me said it and it could be true so I'm going to believe it and trust eternity to that belief. Besides, the people in his religion are nice and support each other and the have a great voleyball league..."

But my wife and kids would.

Then I'll rephrase the question:

2. Life isn't precious or sacred at all
So your family won't mind if someone takes yours?

However, the broader issue here is that I don't think you read my support of that statement.

Before taking up the issue with me, perhaps you should explain to your wife why she and your children are not precious.

2. Life isn't precious or sacred at all So your family won't mind if someone takes yours?

Why, yes they would.

Before taking up the issue with me, perhaps you should explain to your wife why she and your children are not precious.

I'm sorry, ctdonath2, but I believe you are missing the point of the post. It is like the tired old metaphoricle question, "is it true you've stopped beating your wife."

My wife and children are precious to me.

Y'know, Jesus was precious to the apostles, but God took His BM away anyway.

Or did he...?

No need to have him ask me; I'll answer you on my own. I am Robroy's wife, and although I spend most of my time lurking, I wanted to jump in here, and perhaps help clarify your confusion. What Robroy is saying is that OUR BODIES are not sacred or precious. Our spirits (read: souls) are all that ultimately matter. If he were to lose his life today, he knows (and I know) that he will be going on to spend eternity with the Lord. So leaving this life is not to be feared or worried over. When he says the kids and I would not want his life taken, he's referring to the fact that we benefit from having him alive by his love, companionship, protection and income. So we, who would be left behind, would mourn the loss of him for ourselves, while being happy for him, because we have the knowledge of knowing he has taken his place for all eternity with God. How could I ever want anything more for him? Conversely, while we live, he takes utmost care of all of us, yet always knowing that when the day comes for one of us to leave this world, he'll be happy for us for gaining eternity, yet sad for himself because while he occupies his human body he'll miss the relationship he had with us here on earth. It's not a matter of not appreciating the lives we have now, and knowing we have to take care of them; it's more about understanding that this is so temporary, and not the main focus of what we are about. These bodies are just the vessels that contain who we really are; and what comes after this is the focus. I, and our children, know that Robroy sees all of us as precious; but he sees the "us" that will go on into eternity. Not the flesh that it is temporarily wrapped in.

I didn't expect yer wife to actually jump in here! :-)
Good answer, m'am.

An observation I almost posted is that there are some ideas which are so preposterous/evil as to be not worth further analysis. "Life isn't precious or sacred at all" is one of them.

Good answer #72 notwithstanding, the original assertion is still completely wrong. Life IS precious. We ARE to protect life diligently and passionately. We are to undertake the taking or leaving of life as a profoundly grave matter. Knowing that one's spirit continues on thereafter is a joyous comfort (depending on _where_ the spirit continues), and we may take peace in knowing that God has decided when "it's time". However, in recognizing the nature & continuation of one's spirit, we must not neglect valliant efforts in protecting and sustaining the "container". There is an impact, often evil, linked with the loss of life. To even suggest that "life isn't precious or sacred at all" creates the grave danger that one may neglect the protection thereof, if not accept contempt for it and subsequently sinfully take it under the delusion that something lesser is worth more. Such ideas historically lead to "kill them all, God will know His own."

In response to your post #73. We are basically in agreement. Although I must say this: I would kill a man in war, I would kill a man in self defence, I would "pull the plug" (but would not participate in euthanasia - one is passive, the other active), I would execute a murderer and I am pro-life regarding abortion.

The initial premisis is basically a bull-in-the-china-closet way of saying the body is only important because of what it contains. Now, as you point out, this can be stretched to support evil acts. But then, people do that with the Bible all the time.

Velikovsky never claimed anybody would find oil on Venus and NOBODY at the time believed that Venus would be any more than ten or fifteen degrees warmer, latitude for latitude, than Earth. That makes for a gigantic correct prediction on Velikovsky's part which establishment science still refuses to grant him credit for. Carl Sagan's ridiculous "super greenhouse" theory is a piece of ad-hoc BS which is ludicrous on the face of it and ludicrous upon close examination. If the Russian probe destroyed anybody's theory, it was Sagans; Venera probes showed no sunlight whatsoever reaching the surface of Venus or even getting through the cloud layers and Russians noted that the surface light there thus had to be local, caused by the intense heat which Velikovsky predicted and local chemicals. You really need to check out my posting above (56).

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.