The Biblical Case for Being Pro-Choice and Funding Stem Cell Research

Genesis 2.7 says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Fetuses and stem-cells, on the other hand are not breathing. And until they take their first breath, they would not be considered as being alive or having a soul as indicated by Genesis 2.7 or by the law in most states. When a baby is found dead and abandoned, the test for whether it is a homicide or a stillborn is to perform an autopsy and determine if the lungs have ever been inflated. No inflation equals no breathing equals no homicide. So, it would seem that Genesis 2.7, our legal code and I all agree on the point that Abortion and Stem Cell Research are not murder.

I would imagine that of all the billions of people that have ever lived, quite a long list of people supporting anything could be compiled.

The question wasn't whether there was a long list of people supporting it; the question was whether there was a long list of degreed scientists who support it. And the answer is yes. Both living and dead. Not idiotic, blinded-by-faith, anti-intellectuals, but wise, profound, degreed scientists, living today, studying the information we have today, reaching conclusions today. There are many scientists who have abandoned their previously-held evolutionary beliefs based on the evidence.

You can continue to blindly discredit it by claiming that the field of creation science once believed that dinosaur bones were carved out rock (a ridiculous statement that I have never, ever heard, despite years of studying the field), but that doesn't change the facts. There are very real, very credible, brilliant people who choose to believe that creation science and/or intelligent design theory fits the facts of the world around us better than evolution theory does. Study it and dismiss the evidence if you choose; that's your prerogative. But that doesn't make the evidence go away.

Yep. I'm afraid TOM wins this one Gadgelady.

You can count me as one of those "...mainstream molecular biology and zoology" folks who are still "...seriously enthusiastic supporters of Darwinism." (To quote your source.)

Yep. I'm afraid TOM wins this one Gadgelady.

You can count me as one of those "...mainstream molecular biology and zoology" folks who are still "...seriously enthusiastic supporters of Darwinism." (To quote your source.)

Oh - I didn't realize TOM was the judge. Or are you the judge, and you decide TOM wins? I have been getting a number of PM's from people who support my opinion, and they'd disagree with your assessment of who wins this one. Guess what? They're afraid to post because they think they'll get bashed.

Oh - I didn't realize TOM was the judge. Or are you the judge, and you decide TOM wins? I have been getting a number of PM's from people who support my opinion, and they'd disagree with your assessment of who wins this one. Guess what? They're afraid to post because they think they'll get bashed.

Then why didn't you tell them that no one is bashing anyone here?

Can't they read that for themselves?

No name calling, just honest debate.

Gadgetlady: I say who wins. For me. Obviously others can decide that you or someone else wins. For them. Personally, I vote for TOM. I find him to have the most credibility and most sensible theories.

As for someone who doesn't post here, what do they have to do with ANYTHING? That's strictly between you and them. If they wanted their information put into this thread, they'd post it. We're probably thousands of miles away, we're anonymous. How can we harm them? Why do you or they think that we mean harm to anyone? God forbid. Someone is reading something between the lines that just isn't intended.

Then why didn't you tell them that no one is bashing anyone here?

Can't they read that for themselves?

No name calling, just honest debate.

Sometimes it's honest debate. Sometimes it's not. I have no problem laying out facts and debating if people are willing to listen. But when people start saying things like:

"It is patently absurd, and quite frankly I have zero idea how any learned person would even give it much thought, let alone believe it. I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person, but honestly it is so over the top crazy that I am entirely unsure how anyone with any schooling could give any credence to such a theory.

Creationsim is a danger to the minds of young people, and a threat to all rational, logical, scientific thought."

. . . that's pretty much bashing in my mind. It may be a nice way of bashing (note the "I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person" - well, yes, you are), but it's still bashing.

We're probably thousands of miles away, we're anonymous. How can we harm them? Why do you or they think that we mean harm to anyone? God forbid. Someone is reading something between the lines that just isn't intended.

This isn't the first time I've rec'd PM's supporting my opinion on controversial subjects. I've seen a lot of bashing on different threads and some of it has been quite hurtful. If I were someone who was easily offended or couldn't handle being attacked, I wouldn't post either. If you're not very thick-skinned, even words from people you don't know can hurt.

Aw, Gadgetlady. So someone feels passionately about the topic. That's her perrogative. I have a very strong feeling that Sunta (I think it was) just disagreed strongly and did not mean any harm to you personally with what she said.

You obviously feel very strongly about the subject as well. That's cool. But just because someone disagrees with you in an open forum in a very passionate way, it doesn't mean that they are trying to bash you personally.

Are you sure that it isn't just that you're offended that people here aren't buying the concept of creationsim in spite of all your hard work and the large volume of data that you've posted?

It's okay. Really. You didn't take us to raise.

I ran across this on a blog, and I thought it was interesting.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/the_sad_state_o.html#more

Aw, Gadgetlady. So someone feels passionately about the topic. That's her perrogative. I have a very strong feeling that Sunta (I think it was) just disagreed strongly and did not mean any harm to you personally with what she said.

You obviously feel very strongly about the subject as well. That's cool. But just because someone disagrees with you in an open forum in a very passionate way, it doesn't mean that they are trying to bash you personally.

Are you sure that it isn't just that you're offended that people here aren't buying the concept of creationsim in spite of all your hard work and the large volume of data that you've posted?

You are totally misunderstanding me. I didn't say I was offended; I said others were and therefore were not willing to post here. I'm pretty thick-skinned. I go against the grain on a lot of topics. I'm a born-again Christian, I homeschool my kids, I'm pro-life and have been a pro-life speaker and debater, I believe in creation science, I'm a libertarian, and the list goes on. I'm not offended that people don't believe because of what I posted. But I still think they're wrong

I think the major reason that a lot of people don't post is that they don't want their views challenged. If they post, it gives people the opportunity to point out that they might not be right, and in some cases, post very convincing evidence that just might change their minds. If they don't post, they can keep on thinking that they are right and that there isn't any evidence out there that would challenge what they have been told. Of course, this isn't true of everyone. Some people truly can't differentiate between having their views challenged and being personally attacked.

I personally think that if other people are "offended" by a relatively tame debate, just because they happen to disagree with the majority opinion (or at least the majority of the posters), they shouldn't be reading a thread in the RnR forum. I think discussions like this are interesting because they really make you consider what you believe.

I think the major reason that a lot of people don't post is that they don't want their views challenged. If they post, it gives people the opportunity to point out that they might not be right, and in some cases, post very convincing evidence that just might change their minds. If they don't post, they can keep on thinking that they are right and that there isn't any evidence out there that would challenge what they have been told.

There might be some of this going on. I've also had people tell me they don't have the time to get into it, or they're tired of debating this issue in yet another forum because they've debated it before. It certainly CAN be tiring, and to properly address it you do have to have a lot of time.

I personally think that if other people are "offended" by a relatively tame debate, just because they happen to disagree with the majority opinion (or at least the majority of the posters), they shouldn't be reading a thread in the RnR forum.

I don't have a problem with anyone reading it, regardless of whether they get offended or not. In fact, I like to expose people to the evidence behind creation science because most people are not aware of how viable a proposition it is. Because evolution has been rammed down their throats their entire lives, they have a knee-jerk reaction to hearing about creation science (similar to the "those idiots think dinosaur bones are carved out of rock, ha ha ha, I won't even consider their theories" mindset).

Because evolution has been rammed down their throats their entire lives,

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I wasn't exposed to evolution at all until I got to college. My high school biology teacher flatly refused to teach it. I personally think that most people don't know what evolution really is. They have heard what their pastors say and what people who have a very basic knowledge say, but they have never really learned evolution. Most people still think evolution = monkey theory.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I wasn't exposed to evolution at all until I got to college. My high school biology teacher flatly refused to teach it. I personally think that most people don't know what evolution really is. They have heard what their pastors say and what people who have a very basic knowledge say, but they have never really learned evolution. Most people still think evolution = monkey theory.

We have very different experiences, then. Everywhere I go, everything I listen to, I keep hearing "millions of years" presented as fact. Discovery Channel, movies, documentaries, museums, the internet, everywhere. Where do you live?

Tennessee. Millions of years is fact, as much as gravity is fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

And just for good measure, Five Misconceptions about Evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html