Comment #34297

Posted by Prince Vegita on June 8, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)

Well at least numerous creation myths will be presented alongside.  Hopefully this will actually encourage people to think about the nature of evidence, and how scientists do their jobs. 

Naah.  :)

Comment #34303

Posted by tytlal on June 8, 2005 01:09 PM (e) (s)

“It teaches evolution as fact,” Hicks said. “That is one view. Why is my view excluded?”

Simply, because your view is wrong.

“Ganesha is the son of Shiva,” Hicks said. “He is the first god a Hindu chants to. This violates the first and second commandments (of the 10 Commandments) and it is very offensive.”

Mr. Hicks, I find it offensive that your book containing the Commandments claims humans (life) were created by God.

Comment #34306

Posted by IgnoranceIsBliss on June 8, 2005 01:20 PM (e) (s)

Out of curiosity, why is Ganesha there?  Is it to preach about the origins of life according to Hindu beliefs, or is it because it looks like a multi armed elephant?

Comment #34308

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 8, 2005 01:31 PM (e) (s)

Having not been to the zoo I’m not totally sure.  I did see a reference that there is a statue of Ganesha by the elephant exhibit with a sign describing how important elephants are to Indian culture.

Comment #34311

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 8, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)

I don’t see any problem with this. Quite the opposite. Zoos serve more than just a scientific function - indeed, in terms of their relationship with the public the scientific aspect is pretty minimal. So tell people how animals and biodiversity in general are addressed in different cultures. You’re not going to learn much useful about the evolution of a crocodile from a zoo exhibit, so you might as well find out how it is central to the Mayan creation myth, and learn a bit about the Mayan culture instead.

Comment #34312

Posted by bill on June 8, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)

Having lived near Tulsa and been to the zoo many times, the statue of Ganesha is a big attraction for kids (and adults!) and it’s been there for about a decade.  I have pictures of my kids lined up, arms outstretched mimicking Ganesha’s pose.  The carving of Ganesha is very lighthearted, fun and well done.  It’s a tribute to the elephants.

I don’t recall seeing parents shielding the eyes of their kids.  It was more like “Hey, Bubba, hold yer arms out like this ‘n’ I’ll git a picher.”

And, finally, from a Hindu web site about Ganesha:  He is the Lord of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped as the god of education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth.

Oh, the irony.

Comment #34315

Posted by Jim Wynne on June 8, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)

Ginger Yellow wrote:

I don’t see any problem with this. Quite the opposite. Zoos serve more than just a scientific function - indeed, in terms of their relationship with the public the scientific aspect is pretty minimal. So tell people how animals and biodiversity in general are addressed in different cultures. You’re not going to learn much useful about the evolution of a crocodile from a zoo exhibit, so you might as well find out how it is central to the Mayan creation myth, and learn a bit about the Mayan culture instead.

It sounds like the Ganesha thing ties a cultural aspect of Hinduism in with the elephant display, which I agree shouldn’t be a problem. How do you justify posting the Ten Commandments,though, when their posting is a misbegotten, childish equal-time issue?

Comment #34316

Posted by pondscum on June 8, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

This following is the text of a letter I sent to the Tulsa World this morning—thought I’d share it with PT…

Although I am skeptical that any valid, legal issues exist, let’s assume that the statue of Ganesha and the “marble globe” at the Tulsa Zoo have an overt religious intent—i.e., the Tulsa Zoo is attempting to exert influence in matters of faith.  Under this questionable assumption, it follows that publicly-funded entities should not be promoting religion.  The correct response would be to either remove the offending items or, perhaps, add some sort of disclaimer (the Tulsa Zoo could become the disclaimer capital of the zoo world!*).  But no, the response is to jump into faith issues with both feet by authorizing various displays on creation.  Fairness is cited in support of this creationism ploy, but if one follows the logic of the “legal” argument one finds that it distills to “two wrongs make a right.”  It’s also curious that the so-called fairness remedy is to be a display describing (among others) one Christian perspective on creation—apparently the version in Genesis 1, but not the one in Genesis 2.  Why a creation display?  Wouldn’t it be more consistent with the context to propose displaying some sort of Christian icon—perhaps a cross or some reference to our biblical charge to be stewards of the earth?  It would seem that some folks are trying to exploit a dubious First Amendment issue, in an attempt to push an anti-evolution agenda that has been repudiated by the courts (e.g., Aguillard vs. Edwards [1987]).

*Note to PT readers:  Apparently, Dan Hicks has already forced the Tulsa Zoo to put disclaimers on signage that discuss evolution.

Comment #34317

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 8, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

It’s not the ten commandments, though, is it? Just the creation story. I’d agree the ten commandments has no place there, or inded anywhere else owned or funded by the state.
I’d be even more happy with it if right next to the creation story(ies) they had a big panel explaining the scientific evidence against it.

Comment #34318

Posted by Steve Reuland on June 8, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

The question is whether or not Ganesha was placed there for the purpose of advancing religion, or manages to have that effect.  The affimative would be a pretty hard argument to make.  It’s unlikely that the people who put it there were Hindu, and even less likely that anyone feels pressured to become a Hindu because of its presence. 

What this Hicks character is pulling, by contrast, appears to be intended to advance his religion.

Comment #34319

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on June 8, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

Having not been to the zoo I’m not totally sure.  I did see a reference that there is a statue of Ganesha by the elephant exhibit with a sign describing how important elephants are to Indian culture.

If the new displays treat Christian culture in the same manner it would be fine. If they present Genesis as a legitimate scientific alternative, then it’s not fine.

Comment #34324

Posted by Dave Thomas on June 8, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

A little off topic, but when I gave the pro-science followup to ID creationist Phil Johnson’s Feb. 19, 2001 talk at UNM, I invoked Ganesha as an example of the kind of creatures we might see if, indeed, some powerful “designer” was banging out new life forms in some sort of supernatural SkunkWorks.  Ganesha’s mixture of human and elephant features would be a big problem for evolution — it could falsify evolution — but it would be no problem at all for a Designer who can create things like flagella and clotting cascades from scratch.

An article on my talk is here, and the image of ganesha I used is here.

Dave Thomas

Comment #34325

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 8, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)

“Ganesha is the son of Shiva,” Hicks said. “He is the first god a Hindu chants to. This violates the first and second commandments (of the 10 Commandments) and it is very offensive.”

‘Very offensive’. Give me a damn break. I hate to imagine what’d happen to this silly ass thin-skinned clown if he ever actually visited India.

Comment #34328

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 8, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

Man, and I thought zookeepers were cool.
What a joyless, dour worldview.
I bet he’s the kind of guy who won’t let his kids dress up for Halloween, being as it’s “pagan” and “very offensive.”

Comment #34330

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 8, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)

I should point out that according to the Tulsa Beacon link, the zoo board has said that Hicks’s display would require a message identifying it as literature.  I don’t know what the final ruling was.

Comment #34338

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

Anyone have email addies we can flood?  Zoo officials, newspapers?

Comment #34339

Posted by Jason Spaceman on June 8, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

The Associated Press has a brief news item about it here:

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue.

The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God’s creation of the world in six days and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

Comment #34340

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 8, 2005 06:43 PM (e) (s)

“depicting God’s…rest on the seventh [day]…”
Man, that’s hilarious.
I wonder if God has a little mat for naptime, like you used in kindergarten?

Comment #34344

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)

I wonder if God has a little mat for naptime, like you used in kindergarten?

I am wondering why an omnioptent being would need to, uh, rest.  How exactly does an omnipotent being get, uh, tired.

Comment #34345

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 8, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)

I have always thought that the “seventh” day was a latter addition to the myth that occured when the Hebrews adapted a story from a base-6 society like Babylon.  I have no idea if reputable biblical scholars think the same thing.

I do think that an appropriate response to Hicks’ display would be one pointing out the two or three other, different, creation stories in the Bible, including Genesis 1.  That would be of great benefit to the education of the people of Tulsa.

Comment #34351

Posted by Walt on June 8, 2005 08:16 PM (e) (s)

As some others have pointed out, I actually have no problem with a display on the various myths of creation. I’m fascinated with the subject myself, and I think such myths show how various cultures interpreted nature. But the intent of this display is obvious — and on taxpayer money too. I can’t see this standing up in court.

Comment #34353

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 8, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)

Hicks’ intent is obvious.  So far it is unclear what the intent of the Zoo Board is.  I believe they may be looking to make it an actual “literature” display with actual biblical scholarship, instead of an evangelism display with aplogetics.

Comment #34362

Posted by Dan S. on June 8, 2005 09:46 PM (e) (s)

This makes no sense!  I could understand a display in the reptile house discussing the snake in the Garden of Eden (images of & attitudes towards animals), or something about Adam as the first taxonomist - but the whole seven-day shebang?  That’s …

Oh.  Wait.  I was thinking about this as a zoo professional (or indeed, any rational and reasonable person) might, not some $%^&* babbling about Ganesha.  He’s just jealous because his God doesn’t have a cool elephant head. 

I’ll bet you real money he thinks Harry Potter books are eeeeeevil!

It is interesting, though, as a case of projection.  For some folks, everything *has* to be about religion, it seems, because that’s how they would arrange things if they could.  Science is religion.  Cultural tie-ins in zoos are (wrong) religion.  Harry Potter is (anti/Satanic) religion.

Comment #34364

Posted by Christopher Claus on June 8, 2005 09:52 PM (e) (s)

Hey… My local planetarium has exhibits about the planets that are obviously named after Roman Gods.  I think an equal time exhibit for the christian god is warranted.  Perhaps a Zooastrian display.  Shinto?

I think it is funny that the responsible party’s name is Dan Hicks.  Have a listen to late comedian Bill Hicks’ rant on creationists called “Dinosaurs and the Bible.”

Don’t worship in my Zoo and I won’t think in your church.

Comment #34365

Posted by Michael Hopkins on June 8, 2005 10:01 PM (e) (s)

Ken Ham has an article on this at AiG.  It has pictures of Ganesha, etc.  Clearly these are not making factual claims so the entire rational for including the YEC exhibit is false.

—
Anti-spam: Replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Comment #34367

Posted by Steven Laskoske on June 8, 2005 10:05 PM (e) (s)

As some others have pointed out, I actually have no problem with a display on the various myths of creation. I’m fascinated with the subject myself, and I think such myths show how various cultures interpreted nature. But the intent of this display is obvious — and on taxpayer money too. I can’t see this standing up in court.

Actually, that shouldn’t be a problem.  If it is put up as one of many cultural views of origins, then there is no problem with it standing up in court.  Consider it like the friezes in the Supreme Court building.  There you have Moses shown with other figures from other cultures but the interpretation is not there to get people to convert to Christianity.  Instead, Moses is shown as one (of several) great lawgivers and the frieze also contains figures like the Hammurabi and Confuscious.  Moses is given no special prominence.

If they do a display like that, along with displays from other cultures (giving no special prominence to Christianity) and how they relate to nature, there should be no problem (either legally or morally).  In fact, I’d highly approve of such a presentation (as I’m sure many here would). 

Context would indeed be important, though.  I suspect that the Zoo Board would take that into consideration.

Comment #34368

Posted by shiva on June 8, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)

The Hindu view of the deity is very different from a Judeo/Christian?Islamic one. The story of how Ganesha got an elephant’s head is a long one that has been analysed both by classical Hindu scholars as well as modern scholars (the latter having used a Freudian perspective for what it is worth). Ganesha is extremely popular in Southern India and Western India and is everywhere the first deity to be propitiated before any good thing is done. Ganesha is supposed to be easy to please and is offered the least ornate flowers and fruits.
Ganesha is not the lord of animals, his father is - Shiva - one of whose names is Pasupathi or beastmaster! Religious beliefs vary widely among Hindus. There may be a few who believe all the various Hindu myths literally, others believe it to be an allgory, and yet others are Hindu with almost no belief at all in any deity with form. In fact it is among the latter that Ganesha as a cultural icon may find acceptance while the literally minded Hindus may feel uncomfortable at an idol inside the zoo!
Ganesha is much beloved - probably even more than Krishna - in Southern India and this misunderstanding will likely be disturbing to many of his devotees.
Ganesha in Indonesia is a cultural icon http://www.itb.ac.id… and is used like a seal/crest by the Institute of Technology, Bandung. Here is a case of culture and religion being seen as separate ideas.

Disclosure: I am Hindu and have an interest in this issue being settled with no one feeling offended. While I can see some valid cultural purpose in placing the Ganesha statue near the elephant pen at the zoo; I would rather have it taken away if its placement is seen as to provide a forum at public expense to spread the tenets of a certain faith. In fact Tulsa itself has a large Hindu Temple where the ‘chief’ deity is Ganesha. http://www.tulsatemple.org….

Comment #34371

Posted by Mike Walker on June 8, 2005 10:53 PM (e) (s)

This story just made the front page of the Yahoo portal.

Comment #34374

Posted by Kipli on June 8, 2005 11:38 PM (e) (s)

I wonder: at what point will this demand for “equal time” start to backfire?  If the Judeo-Christian creation story is put on a display along with other creation stories, won’t that make it just one of many, rather than The One?

If the display is to pass the establishment smell test, I would think that it would have to present the JC story as “one of many” or emphasize the literary aspects of it (i.e., it’s just a story) and thus weaken claims that the Bible is literally true.  Perhaps kids will start to interpret the JC story as just another myth, as those of other cultures are usually described.

Ultimately, maybe Hicks will get more than he bargained for.

Comment #34375

Posted by jay boilswater on June 8, 2005 11:53 PM (e) (s)

Yep, equality in planetary names should be in the offing.  And then, well, tomorrow IS Thor’s day!

Comment #34376

Posted by Simon Tree, Jr. on June 9, 2005 12:22 AM (e) (s)

If the display is to pass the establishment smell test, I would think that it would have to present the JC story as “one of many” or emphasize the literary aspects of it (i.e., it’s just a story) and thus weaken claims that the Bible is literally true.  Perhaps kids will start to interpret the JC story as just another myth, as those of other cultures are usually described.

An interesting thought.

So is now the time for everyone to submit their favorite creation myth to the Tulsa Zoo?  Will a myth’s eligibility for display be determined by popular vote?

Perhaps Great White Wonder’s “enterocraftic theory” should be submitted.  If there isn’t already a display which depicts a “giant space bat” pooping out planet Earth, I’m sure Tulsa schoolkids would love to see one …

Comment #34385

Posted by BC on June 9, 2005 01:27 AM (e) (s)

I think it would be interesting to see various creation myths in the zoo.  Of course, they could go one step further and talk about problems inherent in the myths.  For example, Native Americans believe that they were placed in North America by a god — that they’ve always lived in North America.  The genetic evidence (in the mitochonrial DNA) shows that they emigrated (mostly) from somewhere around the caucus region of Asia.  Christian creationism has some problems to: many Christian creationists claim that animals were created as vegetarians.  Obvious and inconvenient facts - such as snake venom, the scorpion’s tail, the spider’s web building and venom, and cats’ (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) - would be rather nice.  Perhaps they could follow up with some easy-to-understand evidence for evolution with the title “the triumph of science”.

Comment #34387

Posted by yellow fatty bean on June 9, 2005 01:57 AM (e) (s)

BC wrote:

I think it would be interesting to see various creation myths in the zoo.  Of course, they could go one step further and talk about problems inherent in the myths.  For example, Native Americans believe that they were placed in North America by a god — that they’ve always lived in North America.  The genetic evidence (in the mitochonrial DNA) shows that they emigrated (mostly) from somewhere around the caucus region of Asia.  Christian creationism has some problems to: many Christian creationists claim that animals were created as vegetarians.  Obvious and inconvenient facts - such as snake venom, the scorpion’s tail, the spider’s web building and venom, and cats’ (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) - would be rather nice.  Perhaps they could follow up with some easy-to-understand evidence for evolution with the title “the triumph of science”.

An exhibit with the phrase “According to the Judeo/Christian creation myth…..” in it at a zoo would be most excellent. 

Just imagine the nitwits THAT would bring out of the woodwork…….

Comment #34399

Posted by Kaptain Kobold on June 9, 2005 04:40 AM (e) (s)

“cats’ (both housecats and large cats) inability to survive on a vegetarian diet (because of an inability to produce enough taurine, thus forcing them to be carnivores) -“

Interesting. Those that adhere to the ‘vegetarian creation’ idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

I’ve never seen any attempt to deal with carnivory outside of the mammals, though. The rest of nature seems to get ignored.

Comment #34409

Posted by a maine yankee on June 9, 2005 07:56 AM (e) (s)

“Perhaps Great White Wonder’s “enterocraftic theory” should be submitted.  If there isn’t already a display which depicts a “giant space bat” pooping out planet Earth, I’m sure Tulsa schoolkids would love to see one …”

Finally something to abdicate one’s mind for. Thank you. Thank You. Although I tend to lean toward the alien spacecraft waste-tank flush theory of life’s origin.

Comment #34410

Posted by Marcus Good on June 9, 2005 07:59 AM (e) (s)

I can’t help but hope this backfires.

Just put up a big sign reading “The elephant in mythologies”.

Yep, then watch them splutter as they argue that True Christianity(r) is not a mythology!

Comment #34433

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 9, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Interesting. Those that adhere to the ‘vegetarian creation’ idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

Funny how vague, ill-documented anecdotes seem to play such a large role in the ‘evidence’ for creationism…

Comment #34434

Posted by BC on June 9, 2005 11:06 AM (e) (s)

Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

Google on “cats” “taurine” and you should find quite a few.  Here’s some links I found:

As for vegetarian diets, cats require the aminosulfonic acid taurine, which is unavailable in natural vegetable except for trace concentrations in some plant sources like pumpkin seeds; not enough to do a cat any good. Lack of taurine can cause blindness or even death by cardiomyopathy.
http://www.petsandmore.ca/vkittenfood.html

The cat cannot sustain its life unless it consumes meat in some form….
Taurine… An amino acid that is not built into proteins, but is distributed throughout most body tissues. Taurine is important for healthy functioning of the heart, retina, bile fluid and certain aspects of reproduction.
Cats – Must eat preformed Taurine and since Taurine is not found in plant tissues, cats must consume meat to obtain Taurine. Cats can’t make their own, therefore, Taurine is essential in the diets of cats. Here again, meat has to be supplied to the factory so the Taurine can be extracted for its many uses.
Dogs – Make their own in their internal chemical factory.
http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/catsaredif.html

taurine, an essential amino acid, is found only in animal proteins. Without enough taurine, cats develop vision and heart problems. Arginine is an amino acid that is found most abundantly in animal proteins. This nutrient clears the blood of ammonia, which is a by-product of protein metabolism. Since cats use so much protein, just one meal without arginine is enough to drive ammonia in the blood to toxic levels. Choline and the other B vitamins, many of which are important to protein metabolism, are also found in the highest concentrations in meat, and your carnivore cat needs lots of those vitamins.

As efficient as cats are at metabolizing protein, they can’t metabolize vitamin A from the betacarotene in plants like carrots, and need vitamin A in a different form that is found only in meat. There are a variety of fatty acids found only in meat that cats need for proper function of the immune system, healthy skin, control of inflammation and other body processes-your cat can’t synthesize these nutrients either. And while we can sit in the sun and convert the 7-dehydrocholesterol in our skin into vitamin D, cats cannot.
http://www.thedailycat.com/netscape/bringing/healthy/archive/carnivore/

AIG is still maintaining on their website that all animals were created as vegetarian.  They have an article about a lion (I think) that was kept in a zoo and feed using plants and eggs.  I don’t know it it was true or not, but conceivably, the lions got their taurine from the eggs (which is essentially meat, and would be a violation of AIG’s interpretation of genesis, which says that animals ate only plants).

Comment #34439

Posted by SEF on June 9, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

An aunt of mine tried to make her pet cat into a vegetarian. It got sick (despite making the occasional attempt to have my aunt’s legs) and eventually she gave in and fed it meat again. She would pray/apologise to each dead animal she prepared for giving its life (not exactly willingly!) so that her cat could live. She never had anything larger than a domestic cat as far as I know though. She might not have been around long if she’d tried to make anything larger than a domestic cat into a vegetarian.

Comment #34443

Posted by HDB on June 9, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)

I guess I’ll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the “first animals” ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don’t these people have anything better to do? (I know, that’s a silly question…of course they don’t!)

Comment #34455

Posted by BC on June 9, 2005 01:39 PM (e) (s)

I guess I’ll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the “first animals” ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don’t these people have anything better to do? (I know, that’s a silly question…of course they don’t!)

There are a couple reasons they are concerned about this.  First, they probably don’t regard a carnivorous, kill-or-be-killed world to be entirely perfect.  Secondly, and more importantly, they believe that sin was the cause of death.  Before Adam sinned there was no death (“the wages of sin are death”).  There are some New Testament verses which seem to indicate that death only occured after Adam sinned.  In their view, Jesus death removed the penalty of death (in other words, Adam’s sin caused physical death in the world, Jesus death didn’t remove physical death, but gave an afterlife in heaven).  I’ve heard creationists vigorously argue the point that if there was death before the fall of man, then there was nothing Jesus was saving us from.

Some quotes about this from creationist websites:
For if death is not the result of sin, then Christ’s sacrificial death was unnecessary and did not pay the price for our sin… If you believe dinosaurs and other animals died millions of years before man and sin entered the world, then you have undermined the entire Gospel and the very reason Christ’s death was necessary.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/deathsin.html

“How do we know that there was no death before sin?” The first reason we can know this is because death is not “very good.” After God finished creating the earth and all its contents, the Bible records: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) The Hebrew word for “good” is tob, and means absolute good as compared to God’s holiness. God would not have been able to say this if there was death either of humans or animals in the newly created world (Shackleford 11)…. Romans 5:12: “Therefore… through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned….”
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/p/tpg124/writings/researchpaper.html

Carnivorism plays into this because carnivorism implies death.  Hence, by making animals vegetarian, they can avoid death caused by the predator/prey relationship (don’t ask me how animals maintained stable population sizes without predators).  There are also verses in genesis which indicate that all animals were to eat plants.

It’s a commitment to genesis literalism, ideals of a perfect world (a world with no carnivores), and the “sin brought death into the world, Jesus rectified the situation” that drives them.

(On a similar subject, I recently wrote an article about how literal belief Noah’s flood is unmaintainable.  According to the Biblical information, the flood would’ve occured around 2350 BC, but Egyptian civilization has been in existence from around 3100 BC.  Most of the pyramids were built before 2350 BC.)

In the end, I think they are stuck in a situation like the Native Americans, of claiming something that flies in the face of evidence.  Of course, fundamentalists are urged to use the Bible as THE source of truth.  Everything else (including science) is negotiable and subject to change (read: unreliable).  Of course, most Christians don’t like to have a theology that contradicts science, so factors like ignorance help avoid this tension and groups like AIG have worked to undermine and misrepresent the science.  There’s an enormous list of contradictions YEC face if they sat down and thought about it.

Comment #34457

Posted by BC on June 9, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

I guess I’ll never understand the fundamentalist viewpoint. Who the *&$^%!! cares if the “first animals” ate plants, each other, or Big Macs? Don’t these people have anything better to do? (I know, that’s a silly question…of course they don’t!)

There are a couple reasons they are concerned about this.  First, they probably don’t regard a carnivorous, kill-or-be-killed world to be entirely perfect.  Secondly, and more importantly, they believe that sin was the cause of death.  Before Adam sinned there was no death (“the wages of sin are death”).  There are some New Testament verses which seem to indicate that death only occured after Adam sinned.  In their view, Jesus death removed the penalty of death (in other words, Adam’s sin caused physical death in the world, Jesus death didn’t remove physical death, but gave an afterlife in heaven).  I’ve heard creationists vigorously argue the point that if there was death before the fall of man, then there was nothing Jesus was saving us from.

Some quotes about this from creationist websites:
For if death is not the result of sin, then Christ’s sacrificial death was unnecessary and did not pay the price for our sin… If you believe dinosaurs and other animals died millions of years before man and sin entered the world, then you have undermined the entire Gospel and the very reason Christ’s death was necessary.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/deathsin.html

“How do we know that there was no death before sin?” The first reason we can know this is because death is not “very good.” After God finished creating the earth and all its contents, the Bible records: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) The Hebrew word for “good” is tob, and means absolute good as compared to God’s holiness. God would not have been able to say this if there was death either of humans or animals in the newly created world (Shackleford 11)…. Romans 5:12: “Therefore… through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned….”
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/p/tpg124/writings/researchpaper.html

Carnivorism plays into this because carnivorism implies death.  Hence, by making animals vegetarian, they can avoid death caused by the predator/prey relationship (don’t ask me how animals maintained stable population sizes without predators).  There are also verses in genesis which indicate that all animals were to eat plants.

It’s a commitment to genesis literalism, ideals of a perfect world (a world with no carnivores), and the “sin brought death into the world, Jesus rectified the situation” that drives them.

(On a similar subject, I recently wrote an article about how literal belief Noah’s flood is unmaintainable.  According to the Biblical information, the flood would’ve occured around 2350 BC, but Egyptian civilization has been in existence from around 3100 BC.  Most of the pyramids were built before 2350 BC.)

In the end, I think they are stuck in a situation like the Native Americans, of claiming something that flies in the face of evidence.  Of course, fundamentalists are urged to use the Bible as THE source of truth.  Everything else (including science) is negotiable and subject to change (read: unreliable).  Of course, most Christians don’t like to have a theology that contradicts science, so factors like ignorance help avoid this tension and groups like AIG have worked to undermine and misrepresent the science.  There’s an enormous list of contradictions YEC face if they sat down and thought about it.

Comment #34477

Posted by yellow fatty bean on June 9, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)

Kaptain Kobold wrote:

Interesting. Those that adhere to the ‘vegetarian creation’ idea (and some hold that vegetarianism existed until The Flood) keep bringing up the lions at London Zoo. Apparently during WWII they were fed on a vegetarian diet, allegedly with no ill effects. Does anyone have any more details on this?

This was also done on an episode of Futurama
(That’s the lion coughing at the end)

Comment #34491

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

AIG is still maintaining on their website that all animals were created as vegetarian.  They have an article about a lion (I think) that was kept in a zoo and feed using plants and eggs.

Eggs?

So much for that whole “life begins at conception” thingie, huh.

Comment #34492

Posted by SEF on June 9, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

BC wrote:

they probably don’t regard a carnivorous, kill-or-be-killed world to be entirely perfect.

An interesting point might be when they started saying that though (since we know the religion was stolen and has modified many times by quite different societies). If anything Gen.3:18 seems to be condemning people to a life of vegetarianism. ;-)

Comment #34521

Posted by Evolutionist on June 9, 2005 08:34 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank wrote:
“Eggs?

So much for that whole “life begins at conception” thingie, huh.”

Hen produce eggs regardless. There need not be conception.

___________________________________________

A christian AR website on the vegetarian lion:
http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hralion.htm…

According to The Vegetarian Society UK
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/catfood.html…
“Cats require certain nutrients from meat that cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts from plant foods. These include taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A, and vitamin B12.”

International Vegetarian Union (IVU), however, disagrees.
http://www.ivu.org/faq/animals.html…

Vegetarian Cats Study at the University of Pennsylvania
http://www.vegetariancats.com/index.php…

A PubMed search provides some information.
It appears that the vegetarian diet, of cats, has been defended in the professional literature.

Comment #34532

Posted by BC on June 9, 2005 09:20 PM (e) (s)

About the IVU link, which says cats can survive on a vegetarian diet, the IVU website states:

Special diets must be provided for cats, as they require an amino acid called taurine — found in the muscles of animals.

Synthetic taurine has been developed, and is used in commercial (non vegetarian) cat foods. Vegetarian cats should be fed it as a supplement. Taurine deficiency can result in blindness and even death. Cats also require pre-formed vitamin A and arachidonic acid.

What they are saying here is that synthetic nutrients can be created, allowing cats to survive on a vegetarian diet.  Of course, this is irrelevant to the question of “were all animals created as vegetarian” because there was no way to synthetically create these nutrients until modern times.  So, can cats survive on a vegetarian diet?  Yes, in modern times, with modern science, when under the care of knowledgable humans.  Otherwise, no; in nature cats are forced to be carnivores.

A christian AR website on the vegetarian lion:
http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hralion.htm……

The AIG website has a similar story about the same lion.  However, the AIG website contains these details: “Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk.”  The key here is that “vegetarian” in the common venacular means no meat, but allows eggs.  Genesis says “I have given every green herb for meat:and it was so.”  In other words, the Genesis version is more strict vegetarianism (eggs aren’t a “green herb”) than the common venacular version.  This is why I pointed out that the lion could concievably get the nutrition it needed from eggs - which, from a biochemical standpoint, is meat.  Force that lion to survive on “green herbs” and it will die.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/lion.asp

It appears that the vegetarian diet, of cats, has been defended in the professional literature.

But, is it defended once you add caveats of “no lab created nutrients” and “eating only plants”?

Comment #34536

Posted by Wayne Francis on June 9, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Something that has always made me curious about the vegetarian gets around the no death rule of the bible is the fact that plants are alive.  Plants can die.  When you eat plants they die.

The line between plants and animals is very fuzzy.  Just like every other line we use to catagorize things.  So in actuallity if there was no death then the eating of plants would have to be strictly controled.  Ie you’d have to eat things like fruits because things like carrots would die if you at them.  But that means eating meat isn’t out of the question…. you just can’t kill the animal you get the meat from.  Imagine taking off 1 leg of a pig…it can still live with 3 others in that world.  Other animals like star fish, some worms and other creatures like geckos would also be good sources of meat since they can loose the flesh and just regrow it just like a tomatoe plant can grow more tomatoes.

Comment #34537

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 9, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s)

Never underestimate the ingenuity (and disingenuousness) of biblical literalists. They’ll just argue that if man can make synthetic taurine, then God must have put it in the grass in Eden. Then it disappeared after the fall, because of sin. Or something equally silly. Not quite sure how they’d cope with the eggs/green herbs problem though. Probably through one of their many moments of non-literalism.

Comment #34540

Posted by Greenman on June 9, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)

Sometimes I’m ashamed of my fellow Oklahomans as the provincialism displayed by Hicks seems to be the norm.  Also, Steven Laskoske wrote,

“Consider it like the friezes in the Supreme Court building.  There you have Moses shown with other figures from other cultures but the interpretation is not there to get people to convert to Christianity.  Instead, Moses is shown as one (of several) great lawgivers and the frieze also contains figures like the Hammurabi and Confuscious.  Moses is given no special prominence.”

Ironically, the frieze to which Laskoske refers, and other displays in D.C., have been misrepresented by a Christian fundamentalist email to wrongly suggest government endorsement of their view of religion and to perpetuate the false notion that the U.S. was founded strictly on Judeo-Christian values.  A version of the email and its thorough debunking can be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp….

Comment #34554

Posted by colleen on June 10, 2005 12:10 AM (e) (s)

Just a thought
Instead of fighting the “christian fanatics” at the Zoo, promote the rich, historical aspects of many religions. Including the bible.
I learned from shiva #34368, today. I think that would be a good way to promote separation of church and state. If you get my drift.

Comment #34565

Posted by Evolutionist on June 10, 2005 02:42 AM (e) (s)

BC writes:
“But, is it defended once you add caveats of “no lab created nutrients” and “eating only plants”?”

Tell you what, I’m not sure. I do not have the access to those publications.

I’m not defending creationism.

Did not Jon Sarfati or a related creationist state something to the effect that, in the diluvial world, immortality applied to vertebrate animals only?
I may be wrong.

Comment #34578

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 04:52 AM (e) (s)

There are 2 theories about creation.

1. without God or let say consciousness
2. with consciousness.

The second has more common sense because we never ever sow anything happening without consciousness. Whatever you find in this world, you can see, it was made according to some scheme. Because there was a scheme there must be an intelligence; since there is intelligence there must be a person. Intelligence is only present in a person.

God is therefore, the non-regressable, primeval plan maker of everything. He is the primeval cause of everything and the material nature is the secondary cause of the material universe.

Conclusively, the irreducible underlying element of consciousness is not understood by scientists and so they try to explain everything to be caused by accident and chemicals. This is called the half hen logic, or desiring to have eggs after cutting down the head of the hen. However, no matter how much they speculate God will be always there just as He was there before them and will be there after all the scientist die. He is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of everything. Everything happens according to His plan.

Comment #34584

Posted by SEF on June 10, 2005 05:49 AM (e) (s)

Those aren’t theories in the scientific sense though. They are ideas. You’ve decided to divide things into those which have consciousness and those which don’t.

As it happens, I already know you’ll have a lot of trouble defining consciousness in a satisfactory way, ie such that you and other people will be able to agree consistently on which things fall on one side of your arbitrary division and which on the other. However, let’s temporarily ignore your lack of scientific rigour and pretend you have a simple test and that it matches either the usual prejudice of humans (and gods!) only being conscious or that you’re being generous and will admit some animals.

Meanwhile, we know plenty of things which are “created” or come into being without consciousness: atoms (nuclear fusion/fission), photons (emission), molecules (chemical reactions) up to snowflakes and rocks at the very least. This means that, even if we allow your simplistic consciousness divide, the non-conscious creations outnumber the conscious creations by a long way. So it is still more probable that an event, such as the creation of the universe, was a non-conscious event rather than a conscious one. There’s no evidence for a god and no good reason to invent a god - just bad reasons through human psychological need to invent gods.

Comment #34585

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 06:20 AM (e) (s)

Do nothing in the laboratory and everything will happen? Your direction according to your plan is needed for everything you make in laboratory. you can do small things but God big things.

Comment #34588

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 06:32 AM (e) (s)

Plesa demonstrate yout probabilistic theory. If you cannot then it is still the half hen logic.

MAKE AN ANOTHER BIG BAMG OR WATHEVER. YOU ALREADY HAVE SUCH A BRILLIANT THEORY.

SCIENCE (assumption)  +  DEMOSTRATION  =  ULTIIMATE PROOF

So?

Comment #34589

Posted by SEF on June 10, 2005 06:35 AM (e) (s)

Whatever makes you think that atomic reactions, chemical reactions, snowflakes and rocks are only or even mostly laboratory phenomena? What direction and what plan do you imagine was given to them and can you prove it? If you don’t mean that then what do you mean, eg by my plan? You don’t seem to be making any sense or even replying coherently - just posting unrelated comments.

When saying I (or anyone else) only do small things (NB without specifying how small or big that is), you have yet to show that god has done anything at all - let alone a big thing. Be specific. Give an example and your evidence for that example.

Comment #34590

Posted by SEF on June 10, 2005 06:42 AM (e) (s)

Re: Comment #34588

Ah, so now we have the inappropriate capitalisation symptom of a defective mentality showing up, along with the over-excitable poor spelling, to go with the previous poor logic. It’s an often repeated pattern.

Comment #34591

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 06:44 AM (e) (s)

Pleas demonstrate your probabilistic theory. If you cannot then it is still the half hen logic.

MAKE AN ANOTHER BIG BAMG OR WATHEVER. YOU ALREADY HAVE SUCH A BRILLIANT THEORY.

SCIENCE (assumption)  +  DEMOSTRATION  =  ULTIIMATE PROOF

So?

Comment #34592

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 06:54 AM (e) (s)

1) God can direct the atomic reactions and chemical reactions in the whole universe and then you come up imitating Him in the laboratory. You can do only small things.

2) You are like a kid who sees the car running but doesn’t think there is a driver. So. your analysis involve only the material nature, unfortunately you can not go beyond.

You can stick to your half hen logic. I don’t mind.

Comment #34596

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 10, 2005 07:37 AM (e) (s)

How magnanimous, of you, Mr I can’t even spell ‘bang’.

“The second has more common sense because we never ever sow anything happening without consciousness. Whatever you find in this world, you can see, it was made according to some scheme. Because there was a scheme there must be an intelligence; since there is intelligence there must be a person. Intelligence is only present in a person.

God is therefore, the non-regressable, primeval plan maker of everything. He is the primeval cause of everything and the material nature is the secondary cause of the material universe.”

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a longer chain of non sequiturs in my life. I’m not even sure what the first sentence means, so I’ll skip that one pending further elucidation. Whatever you can see in this world was made according to some scheme? Rather begs the question doesn’t it? How do you know it was made according to some scheme. Then, how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence? Then, how do you know intelligence implies a person, unless you’re counting intelligent non-humans as persons. Which you must be, since you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God. Whoosh! That’s a hell of a leap. But from there it’s a quick hop skip and jump to God being the original maker of everything. How does this follow? Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?

You’re more than welcome to your faith, but don’t pretend it’s a rational argument.

Comment #34599

Posted by Wayne Francis on June 10, 2005 07:48 AM (e) (s)

Sorry I don’t speak “Creationist Pig-Latin” can someone translate for me.

Comment #34602

Posted by NItai on June 10, 2005 08:51 AM (e) (s)

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheem is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*Ok, you will proof the oposit when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparabla so is with a person having intellifgence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to inderstand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. Thats why He is God. Like the vagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

Comment #34607

Posted by Nimai on June 10, 2005 09:05 AM (e) (s)

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That’s why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

Comment #34608

Posted by Nimai on June 10, 2005 09:08 AM (e) (s)

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That’s why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

Comment #34609

Posted by Nimai on June 10, 2005 09:12 AM (e) (s)

EDITED VERSION. SORRY FOR MISTAKES IN HURRY.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That’s why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

Comment #34618

Posted by yellow fatty bean on June 10, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

Nimai wrote:

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That’s why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

CONCLUSION: Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

My crackpot-meter just broke

Comment #34620

Posted by SEF on June 10, 2005 10:18 AM (e) (s)

a) No scheme is necessary. Indeed if you try to scheme with evolution, it plays against that too! It doesn’t have to be smart. It just does what it does - stupidly and persistently. Complexity arises from very simple starting points, eg the computer model “Life” and fractals.

b) Bad choice of example. Einstein had someone else help him with the maths. You still haven’t shown that a scheme (eg in the sense of a pattern) requires intelligence. Crystals demonstrate that a pattern doesn’t require intelligence. So you’ve already lost that one just by the one counter-example.

c) You’ve switched round from intelligence implying a person to a person implying intelligence. A chimpanzee or gorilla is a counter-example of the first, if by person you mean human. Terri Schiavo was an example of the second.

d) You are still just jumping for that one. You have shown no evidence.

c = e) Ooh, the my god is bigger than yours game. How terribly bronze-age of you.

In conclusion, your conclusion isn’t one. It’s just your starting assumption all over again. You have no logical train of thought there, let alone any evidence.

Comment #34622

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 10, 2005 10:35 AM (e) (s)

This is futile, but it’ll be fun for a short while.

Nital, you’re arguing from faith, not from rationality or evidence. First, please define your terms.
What do you mean by “scheme” ? It’s far from obvious.

a. How do you know it was made according to some scheme.
*Probably you would say complexity evolved, however even for that a scheme is needed.

Why is a “scheme” necessary for complexity and why does a “scheme” require intelligence?

b. how do you know a scheme implies an intelligence?
*OK, you will proof the opposite when one idiot will solve mathematical complex formulas like Einstein.

You’re the one inferring intelligence from the (supposed) existence of a scheme. You, therefore, are the one who needs to demonstrate that the inference is valid.

c. how do you know intelligence implies a person
*This sounds very irrational question. But anyway. Just like heath and light are inseparable so is with a person having intelligence.

Heat and light are separable. But anyway, you didn’t answer my question. What do you mean by person? You must understand that personhood is not unambiguous - few here, I imagine, would accept that embryos are persons. But you probably do. What is it about intelligence that implies a person? Would an intelligent chimp be a person?

d. you then leap from intelligence implying a person to intelligence implying a God
*Yes. God has everything including intelligence. So what’s the problem to understand this? Further, all living entities, as much as they deserve, they get intelligence from God to do various things. Birds, beasts, etc. all of them. Just how many times scientist, while walking relaxed in the nature, at once got an idea for a new discovery. Without an endeavoring the idea just came. There are many examples like this in the animal kingdom as well.

Whoosh! Again! You’re arguing from faith. You can’t just say there must have been a “person” therefore there must have been  “God”. It’s not a  logical inference. You’re begging the question again. Who says “God has everything”? You do. The Bible does. But not logic or any empirical evidence. Your arguments are from faith and authority, not science.

c. Why not lots of Gods making different bits of the universe? Why not Gods following one after the other, remaking what was there before?
*You can speak about many Gods I don’t mind, but among all of them there is a primeval Supreme Lord the origin of everything and the cause of all causes. That’s why He is God. Like the wagons are moving because of the driver of the locomotive similarly God is the first pusher, the cause of working of the dull material nature. Even the atoms are moving because of His presence in them. When He is not activating matter that mater is called pradhan.

I don’t really care if you mind. I’d rather you argued your case, rather than just stating the conclusion. There is no logical reason why, even if complexity implies intelligence implies a God, it has to be only one God. Or that the God who created our universe has to be the original creator.

Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. Consciousness implies person whether God or any other living entity.

You haven’t even begun to demonstrate the first sentence. The second I can almost agree with, although with the caveat that consciousness is amost certainly not binary. Again, are chimps persons? How intelligent, how conscious would they have to be before gaining personhood.

Comment #34626

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 11:13 AM (e) (s)

a) No scheme is necessary. Indeed if you try to scheme with evolution, it plays against that too! It doesn’t have to be smart. It just does what it does - stupidly and persistently. Complexity arises from very simple starting points, eg the computer model “Life” and fractals.

**So. when you say stupidly  & persistently that includes conscious decision and endeavour what is the characteristic only of a person. Therefore, consciousness exist.

b) Bad choice of example. Einstein had someone else help him with the maths.
** Yes, God gave Him intelligence maybe through his wife.

bb) You still haven’t shown that a scheme (eg in the sense of a pattern) requires intelligence.
**You are so intelligent, could you do that for me?

bbb) Crystals demonstrate that a pattern doesn’t require intelligence. So you’ve already lost that one just by the one counter-example.
**No. As I mentioned already God’s intelligence is behind everything and His control as well.

c) You’ve switched round from intelligence implying a person to a person implying intelligence. **When you will get the point? Heat and light are both simultaneous characteristics of fire. Some things are just existing together and never separately.

A chimpanzee or gorilla is a counter-example of the first, if by person you mean human. Terri Schiavo was an example of the second.
**Not only human. Any living entity to different degrees has intelligence.

d) You are still just jumping for that one. You have shown no evidence.
**Do you mean here, no evidence that God has all intelligence? If yes, did you ever heard that God is the Greatest (not you or Darwin, but God).
**The evidence for God’s giving intelligence to humans is called inspiration and for animal the instinct. When a pure soul who is on the spiritual level gets knowledge from God that’s called revelation. I am sure you are enough intelligent to find examples for all these. 

c = e) Ooh, the my god is bigger than yours game. How terribly bronze-age of you.
**There is only one God with many names and one religion with many names. Therefore there is no difference of the Main God of any religion. If you don’t accept this maybe you have the intelligence of those fellows from iron age? (Actually I rather avoid this kind of personal attacks. This one is just response to your, I hope, only a joke?)

f) In conclusion, your conclusion isn’t one.
**There is a say how many people so many conclusions. But if you ever thought about the difference between the living and death body there it is. Consciousness is the symptom of life. Absence of consciousness of called death.
If you want scientific details about consciousness you should better read the book from Richard Thompson - Mechanistic and Non-Mechanistic Science.

ff) It’s just your starting assumption all over again. You have no logical train of thought there, let alone any evidence.
**It is also your assumption that there is no consciousness needed for doing any activity. Consciousness is the symptom of life and when there is life there can be activity. Do you agree with this? If you give me an example disproving my statement I will try to explain.

Comment #34630

Posted by Ginger Yellow on June 10, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

Ah well, that wasn’t fun for very long, was it? Now it just gets tedious.

Comment #34635

Posted by IgnoranceIsBliss on June 10, 2005 12:23 PM (e) (s)

When did crazy people on street corners start buying computers and hopping online?

Comment #34636

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 10, 2005 12:27 PM (e) (s)

Consciousness is the symptom of life

I feel ill.

Comment #34642

Posted by SEF on June 10, 2005 12:53 PM (e) (s)

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:

When did crazy people on street corners start buying computers and hopping online?

I’d say it was in the 90s when the systems were dumbed down enough and the internet went public. In the early 80s the internet was largely the province of those of us in the dangerously sane intellectual elite in select universities (plus some military).

Comment #34644

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 01:01 PM (e) (s)

1) What do you mean by “scheme” .
**Scheme - a plan or outline how things should happen.
2) Why is a “scheme” necessary for complexity and why does a “scheme” require intelligence?
**Any practical man e.g. architect can answer this question…only the evolutionists not. 
3) You’re inferring intelligence from the (supposed) existence of a scheme. You, therefore, are the one who needs to demonstrate that the inference is valid.
**My proof is your ability to disproof.
4) What do you mean by person?
**Any living being with a symptom of life.
**The role of the intelligence is to discriminate what to do and what not to do, whether one makes a good or bad choices. Intelligence is found in all living entities in different degrees.
**personalistic philosophy say all living entities are individual persons. Person means -  state of having unique characteristics, animalistic, human or whatever.
4a) Would an intelligent chimp be a person?
**Deriving the conclusion from previous explanations, YES.
5) why, even if complexity implies intelligence implies a God.
**God is the source of everything. Material ingredients for creation (including the mind, intelligence and false ego); the laws of material nature; all the individual souls possessing consciousness.
**He gives the intelligence how to do things. I gave examples in previous post - inspiration, instinct, revelation.
6) Who says “God has everything”? You do. The Bible does. But not logic or any empirical evidence.
**I know the blind faith of many religious people but beyond that is the process of realizing Him by mantra meditation. If you reject to make an experiment and thus gain a direct experience of His existence you will miss the most direct proof about His existence and you can just go on and on arguing that God doesn’t exist. But this is like the frog in the well which cannot understand how big is the ocean. 2 or 3 x bigger than his well? He just speculates. But that’s your life, if you like so.
**With your material senses and materially contaminated intelligence you will never understand God, i.e. how He has everything.
7) Consciousness that is not material is always necessary for performing any activity. About this please read the article on the following site.
http://www.vedic-academy.com/articles/science/consciousness.…

Comment #34648

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 10, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

Ganesha, is that you in there?

Comment #34650

Posted by Savagemutt on June 10, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

I’m thinking English isn’t Nitai’s first language, so I would cut him a little slack about spelling. Unfortunately, even with the grammar and spelling fixed there’s still no coherence.

Wayne Francis wrote:

Sorry I don’t speak “Creationist Pig-Latin” can someone translate for me.

Goddidit

Comment #34651

Posted by Nitai on June 10, 2005 02:35 PM (e) (s)

Any serious comments?
Answers are in codes, formulas. For some need explanation.

Comment #34654

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 10, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Any serious comments?

Anything serious to comment about?

Comment #34669

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on June 10, 2005 03:57 PM (e) (s)

Wayne Francis: Something that has always made me curious about the vegetarian gets around the no death rule of the bible is the fact that plants are alive.  Plants can die.  When you eat plants they die.

Good ol’ Institute for Creation Research honcho Henry M. Morris has the answer for you in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, pg 38:

This attribute of consciousness needs to be emphasized. It is apparently centered physically in the brain which, with its fantastically complex electric circuitry and associated nervous system, is undoubtedly the most highly organized and intricately structured type of system in the universe. Its functioning, of course, depends on the blood, with its “soul,” and the “breath” with its oxygen. … The above considerations indicate that plants do not possess life in this Biblical sense. They are merely extremely complex replicating systems of organic chemicals. It is significant that they were “brought forth” (Genesis 1:12) on the third day, prior to the first creation of “living creatures” on the fifth day.
The same is perhaps true of the simpler forms of what men have described as the animal kingdom, though the exact dividing-line between conscious living creatures and non-conscious replicating systems is not yet clear, either from Biblical definitions or scientific study. Since plants do not have life in the Biblical sense, they cannot die in the Biblical sense. When men and animals were given instructions to eat the fruits and herbs God had created, this was therefore quite consistent with the fact that there was origin