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.

How many Creationists have become Menbers of Duh!, I think they all have and are unwilling to admit it.

AS far as my ideas being rediculous, realy?? you think I am being rediculous?? I'm serious, my Mother would have been created with a memory that the supremme being would have implanted so she only beleives she was around before I was born. I ,mean c'mon He is the supreme being he can do anything. The creationists beleive he created the universe in 7 days he most assuredly could have given everyone who is older then 48 (Today I might add and yes I miscounted by a year so the world is actually 48) A complete memory.

I can't beleive you said the theory of Duh! was rediculous, imagine if I implied that Creationism was rediculous?...........Oh wait, ummm I must be going now

AMEN SISTER, AMEN!!

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.

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.

You apparently do not understand the role of the State DOE.

And, you left out this part:

HISTORY

The Institute for Creation Research was first established in 1970 by Dr. Henry M. Morris. From the beginning, ICR’s mission has focused on research, media, and education in those fields of science particularly relevant to the study of origins. Originally formed as the research division of Christian Heritage College, ICR became autonomous in 1981.

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_history/

The California State Department of Education will approve almost ANY group's request to teach its own cult its own hogwash at its own schools.

Why? Politics and the money/influence of rich, white Christians who have chosen either NOT to give to the poor or not to help them as much as they could help, because they need to save some of the money to make sure they are involved with the politicos so that their agenda can be promoted.

Meanwhile, back in the real (scientific) world, the good folks at Stanford said:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/17/opposeCreationism

I wonder what would happen if I showed up at the Southern Baptist Church or the Seventh Day Adventist Church (each within walking distance of my home) tomorrow and offered to teach a class in science in place of the Sunday Sermon.

gadgetlady: Would you do us both a favor? You seem to really like to quote sources and cite references and give us websites to read to help us understand your perspective. I would really appreciate it if you would help me a little by just listing some of the names of the famous (or well-known enough for us to be able to check them out), scientists who have become creationists? I'm having people in tonight and I don't have time to run through all those web addresses you've listed. Just 50 or so, names, please? Out of thousands, it should be an easy task for you.

I think one of the reasons that former creationists turned evolutionists are harder to find is because, in general, evolutionists don't see evolution theory as life-changing. I don't think you can deny that creationists see "creation science" as intrinsic to their beliefs and their personal lives. As someone who believes deeply in evolution, I still don't consider it as something that really affects me. To me, it just happens, and that's all there is to it. All the scientists that I know don't base all their beliefs on evolution. On the other hand, the entire belief system of creationists hinge on there being a "creator".

Sure, BJean:

Dr. Grady McMurty (degree in science from Berlekey)

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short

Dr. Charlie Lieberts (Chemist)

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist & Paleontologist)

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Wathershed Science)

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)

Dr. Robert V. Gentry (Nuclear Physicist)

Dr. Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D. (physicist and C-14 dating specialist)

(sigh) I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting. Is that enough or do you want more? Becuase there are plenty more.

Here are a few creation scientists, but I'm not sure if they were ever evolutionists (I've also included short bios):

Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory.

Dr. Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)

Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research.

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (inventor of the MRI)

Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods.

If you'd like bios from any of the first list I'd be happy to provide.

Here's an interesting quote from an evolutionist:

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."

(Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

There's a bunch more similar quotes talking about how evolution theory is on the rocks -- mind you, some of them from evolutionsts -- here: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/squotes.html

LMK if you'd like more. I appreciate the request; I much prefer responding to actual questions rather than mockery, which seems all to frequent on this board.

Gadgetlady, you might be interested in this site, which deals with so-called "quotes" from evolutionists. Some of the folks that were cited as saying something on the page that you linked are mentioned.

And, you left out this part:

HISTORY

The Institute for Creation Research was first established in 1970 by Dr. Henry M. Morris. From the beginning, ICR’s mission has focused on research, media, and education in those fields of science particularly relevant to the study of origins. Originally formed as the research division of Christian Heritage College, ICR became autonomous in 1981.

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_history/

I didn't leave that out for any nefarious reason; I have been asked to be succinct and I didn't see that posting when ICR was established or from where it derived was pertinent. Lest you still infer devious intent, I DID, after all, post the link.

The California State Department of Education will approve almost ANY group's request to teach its own cult its own hogwash at its own schools.

Perhaps you might want to cite an example of a graduate school cult?

Bear in mind, this institution offers graduate degrees in Biology, Astro/Geophysics and Geology. That's not really underwater basket weaving, you know.

Meanwhile, back in the real (scientific) world, the good folks at Stanford said:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/17/opposeCreationism

One guy, a "researcher" at the Stanford Daily newspaper believes we should oppose Creationism and he writes an editorial as such, and he stands for the whole of Stanford? He's a guest columnist and he's written (drumroll please) ONE ARTICLE for this student newspaper? PUHLEEZE.

I think one of the reasons that former creationists turned evolutionists are harder to find is because, in general, evolutionists don't see evolution theory as life-changing. I don't think you can deny that creationists see "creation science" as intrinsic to their beliefs and their personal lives. As someone who believes deeply in evolution, I still don't consider it as something that really affects me. To me, it just happens, and that's all there is to it. All the scientists that I know don't base all their beliefs on evolution. On the other hand, the entire belief system of creationists hinge on there being a "creator".

As an aside, the Intelligent Design movement is specifically NOT Christian and does not espouse Biblical Creationism. They hold that life is to complex to have evolved or happened by chance, but they do not point to any of the potential "designers" as "THE" one and only designer. Many proponents of ID do not believe in the God of the Bible. They simply believe that there is a designer rather than random forces.

Here are another couple of sites about supposed evolutionist "quotes".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Gadgetlady, you might be interested in this site, which deals with so-called "quotes" from evolutionists. Some of the folks that were cited as saying something on the page that you linked are mentioned.

Are you saying Edmund Ambrose did NOT say "We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."

About whether ID = Creationism

Are you saying Edmund Ambrose did NOT say "We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."

I never said anything about Edmund Ambrose. But if you want, I can see if I can find something.

Here are another couple of sites about supposed evolutionist "quotes".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

OK, from the 2nd link, "entire books have been published" with quotes, but, 85 "errors" have been found. Many of these "errors" or "misquotes" are simply clarification from the author that even though they already said there are siginificant things that are doubtful about evolution, they still believe it. I don't consider this a misquote or error, but rather a flaw in the author's logic.

You can see exactly what Ambrose said, along with some more detail here.