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.

"Bones can survive for over a year before being buried."

That is very true, but let me ask you a question. If a cat dies in your back yard and you don't discover and dispose of it, will it become fossilized intact over [insert your favorite number] years? It's doubtful. It will likely be carried away by other animals or have its remains otherwise distributed in random fashion.

When a fish dies, does it sink to the bottom of the ocean and lay there and become a fossil?

Why do we have so many intact fossils buried in rock? Why are there fossils of animals eating other animals, giving birth, etc., if their death was not catostrophic but natural?

You know this is actually getting funny, don't you? Is there a contest to see who can do the longest post? Somebody told me that being concise is a virtue here. Maybe they were just talking about me.

I agree with you. I had been trying not to post whole articles but rather links so people can read them themselves, but I felt that I had to respond to some specific issues. I will try to go back to my original methodology

You know this is actually getting funny, don't you? Is there a contest to see who can do the longest post? Somebody told me that being concise is a virtue here. Maybe they were just talking about me.

Sorry, I've been trying to keep it short, for the most part, unless I was responding to something specific.

That is very true, but let me ask you a question. If a cat dies in your back yard and you don't discover and dispose of it, will it become fossilized intact over [insert your favorite number] years? It's doubtful. It will likely be carried away by other animals or have its remains otherwise distributed in random fashion.

Now you are getting the point. Fossilization is fairly rare because the conditions have to be right for it. Otherwise, everytime we dig a hole, we'd find a fossil.

Why do we have so many intact fossils buried in rock? Why are there fossils of animals eating other animals, giving birth, etc., if their death was not catostrophic but natural?

As long as an individual dies in a way that can prevent something tearing apart its body, you can find intact fossils. And like I posted in my last post:

Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as

• burial in sediments in a river delta
  
• burial in sediments from a local river flood
  
• burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
  
• burial in ash from a volcano
  
• burial in a blown sand dune

Well ladies, what you're posting is interesting to a lot of folks I guess. I didn't mean to chastise you, but I had been told to keep it short on more than one occasion at LBT.

Now you are getting the point. Fossilization is fairly rare because the conditions have to be right for it. Otherwise, everytime we dig a hole, we'd find a fossil.

So do you believe that the billions of intact fossils that we find all over the earth are a result of small local floods or volcanos and the like?

What do you make of the various reports of "living fossils", of animals that haven't changed at all over the course of "120 million years" etc.?

So do you believe that the billions of intact fossils that we find all over the earth are a result of small local floods or volcanos and the like?

Many of them, yes. Others, I believe, just happened to die in the right location or at the right time to be fossilized. You really do, IMO, have to remember that fossilization of any organism isn't likely. If it was, we would literally be up to our necks in fossils, when you consider how many living organisms there are and extrapolate that to past populations. In most cases, dead organisms are eaten or decay naturally, leaving little evidence behind.

What do you make of the various reports of "living fossils", of animals that haven't changed at all over the course of "120 million years" etc.?

The theory of evolution doesn't state that a species must evolve. Evolution is just an obvious endpoint to natural selection. If a species isn't facing any pressure to adapt, there is no pressure to evolve. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I have a question that I'm opening up to everyone. I can name a bunch of scientists who used to believe in evolution but have, once presented with evidence of creation science / intelligent design and done their research, no longer believe in evolution. I have not heard of ONE that has gone the other direction. I'm not talking about some "average Joe", non-scientist who used to attend a church that preached creationism and didn't believe it and then discovered they "liked" evolution theory better. I'm talking about scientists who do this for a living. Does anyone know of one (or more) who have made this conversion?

Bumping this up. Anyone know of a scientist who's gone from creationist to evolutionist instead of the other way around?

Bumping this up. Anyone know of a scientist who's gone from creationist to evolutionist instead of the other way around?

If he was a scientist, he would not have been a creationist, so of course you will not find any scientist who have gone from creationist to evolutionist.

That's like asking if anyone knows of a scientist who's gone from creationist to scientist. Duh!!

As was pointed out earlier, a scientist looks for the reason why something happens. A creationist looks for a way to fit what happens into his preconceived idea.

I see you are unwilling to accept creation science or intelligent design as a serious discipline, so I guess I'm asking everyone ELSE the question. There are quite a few degreed scientists who used to believe evolution theory but now instead believe creation theory. Just because you choose to disregard an entire belief system with cute, pithy comments doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I see you are unwilling to accept creation science or intelligent design as a serious discipline, so I guess I'm asking everyone ELSE the question. There are quite a few degreed scientists who used to believe evolution theory but now instead believe creation theory. Just because you choose to disregard an entire belief system with cute, pithy comments doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because someone has a degree, doesn't make him honest or immune from lying to push a political or religious agenda.

Do you really think my comments are cute and pithy?

Thanks!!

Just because someone has a degree, doesn't make him honest or immune from lying to push a political or religious agenda.

That knife cuts both ways, doesn't it? You should listen to what some of these former evolutionists have to say about why they no longer believe in a theory to which some of them devoted their lives. And what they have to say about the agenda of those pushing that theory.

I admit I don't know of any. But that is probably more due to me not researching it than there not actually being any.

But I do have to say one thing: Creation science and intelligent design are not serious scientific disciplines. Serious scientific disciplines actively seek to disprove their hypotheses and theories. Creationists and IDists, on the other hand, don't. If something can not be taught as "science" then it is not science. The following is a quote from www.talkorigins.com, in response to the idea that evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design as a result of their preconceptions and bias for materialism.

This claim is nothing more than an excuse that design theorists use to try to explain away their own failure to make their case. When someone proposes a new scientific theory, it is that person's responsibility to make a case for it. Scientific theories have, in the past, achieved wide acceptance despite strong cultural and scientific resistance. (Evolution itself is an example.) If there is substance to ID theory, its proponents must make it clear.

People who study evolution come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Many of them are far from committed to materialism. Some students enter the field hoping to challenge existing dogmas, and objectively detecting design in life would certainly accomplish that. If there were anything to ID theory, there should be more than enough biologists to help the design theorists make their case.

To all appearances, design theorists have blinded themselves to seeing flaws in their theories. Their religious motivation is obvious. Just as important, they do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.

A scientific theory is tested by subjecting it to a very real chance of falsification. Scientists make specific predictions based on the theory, look to see if the predictions pan out, and consider the theory false if the results cannot fit what was expected. Intelligent design theorists, unlike evolutionary scientists, do not put their ideas to such risks. Apparently, they do not want their ideas at risk.

Design theory is older than Darwin's theory of evolution. Design theory has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.

ETA: I found this, so I know there are at least some former creationists turned evolutionists out there.

From http://www.icr.edu/: The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education.

Sounds pretty serious to me. Especially since the State of California Department of Education, not generally known as a bastion of conservatism or Christianity, granted it.

From http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/: Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies — not their awareness of scientific facts.

ETA: I found this, so I know there are at least some former creationists turned evolutionists out there.

No, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for average people who abandoned what they were taught in Catholic school or parochial school or their church once they got to college. I'm not even looking for average people who eventually became scientists who used to believe in creationism because of the way they were raised. I'm looking for degreed scientists who, while ensconced in their field, changed from believeing in creation theory to believing in evolution theory.