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.

laurend, I just have to say that I am really enjoying this dialogue with you. I can't tell you how pleasant and intellectually challenging it is to respond to actual questions. I generally find that those who mock or degrade simply don't have the facts to defend their perspective and so they resort to snide comments and mockery. Not so with you. Thank you!

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

All he really adds is: My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments.

There's nothing in his quote to dispute the fact that he said what I said he said. According to YOUR website, At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."

That's precisely what I was saying before (BTW, this is one of the 85 "misquotes" cited); he DID say what he was quoted to say; he just doesn't find it compelling enough to change his viewpoint away from evolution theory.

Believe me, I'm having fun. :)To be quite honest (and I hope this doesn't come across as offensive), not many people that I talk to about evolution have really done their own homework, like you have. I think most people take what they are told as the absolute truth and don't do any research into things themselves. Of course, I currently live in Kentucky, also.:rolleyes

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

But this wasn't his full quote, either. I think you have to admit that that quote sounds a little more strict (not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think) than what he actually said. This is what he actually said (emphasis is mine):

At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth.

He also made this quote 25 years ago. I would imagine that geological research has advanced in that time period.

My point is that I would argue that cherry-picking the words in someone's quotes or consiously leaving phrases out that might contradict your stance is mis-quoting them.

A group called the "Institute for Historical Review" was founded in 1978.

One of its founding members wrote a book suggested that the Holocaust was an exaggeration and that it was not anywhere near as large in scope or as evil as most Americans had been taught to believe. The bibliography of the book was sparse.

A year later, another founder of the "Institute for Historical Review" (IHR) wrote a book with similar contentions and it used the above book in its bibliography. A year later a third founder of the IHR wrote a similar book and it used the afore mentioned two books in its bibliography.

After about 10 years and a book or two by each of the founders, a book was written with an impressive bibliography.

How can anyone challenge that book in its contentions that only a small number of Jews died in German camps, and those that did, died from sickness? Here is a studious work with many footnotes and much collaborative proof.

Did I change the subject or did I make a point about fostering an agenda?

Believe me, I'm having fun. :)To be quite honest (and I hope this doesn't come across as offensive), not many people that I talk to about evolution have really done their own homework, like you have. I think most people take what they are told as the absolute truth and don't do any research into things themselves. Of course, I currently live in Kentucky, also.:rolleyes

LOL! You have in no way been offensive at all. It's unfortunate that a lot of people haven't done their homework in a LOT of areas, but continue to spout their mouths off like they know what they're talking about.

I have a personal question for you: have you ever researched creation theory in detail or did that start with this thread? The reason I'm asking is because most people reject it outright due to what they've heard in the media and the like, without ever having researched it.

But this wasn't his full quote, either. I think you have to admit that that quote sounds a little more strict (not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think) than what he actually said. This is what he actually said (emphasis is mine):He also made this quote 25 years ago. I would imagine that geological research has advanced in that time period.

My point is that I would argue that cherry-picking the words in someone's quotes or consiously leaving phrases out that might contradict your stance is mis-quoting them.

I see your point, but then if you quote the entire thing you get accused of being verbose. You have to choose to cut off a quote somewhere, or you'd be quoting the entire life's work of everyone. In this particular case, I don't think it's a misquote, especially since I indicated that he was still an evolutionist when he said it. I think you can infer from that the he didn't find creationism compelling even though he said what he said.

I have a personal question for you: have you ever researched creation theory in detail or did that start with this thread? The reason I'm asking is because most people reject it outright due to what they've heard in the media and the like, without ever having researched it.

I've done some here and there, mainly for papers and research projects in classes.

I see your point, but then if you quote the entire thing you get accused of being verbose. You have to choose to cut off a quote somewhere, or you'd be quoting the entire life's work of everyone. In this particular case, I don't think it's a misquote, especially since I indicated that he was still an evolutionist when he said it. I think you can infer from that the he didn't find creationism compelling even though he said what he said.

I definitely see your point. I just think that a lot of creationists (and other scientists, probably) manage to chop off the bits and pieces of quotes that don't further their agenda, essentially putting words in the mouths of the people they are quoting. I think shortening a quote is fine, as long as the original intent of the quote is saved. In many cases, though, the shortening of evolutionist's quotes have totally twisted what they were actually saying.

Looks like a one-on-one debate is quite effective here and both of you are having a good time and respectfully reading each other's data (presumably).

I am impressed and I am learning in the process. I really appreciate gadgetlady taking the time to present some names that I asked for. It will help me out a lot.

TOM, I know some people think you are way "out there" in left field somewhere, but I think you are very down to earth and thoughtful and I love the way you used an illustration of how some viewpoints come into being. When you study a subject in-depth you almost always can find a case of someone stretching, stretching, stretching to make their point more credible. Fortunately there are people like you who are smart enough to dig really deep.

TOM, I know some people think you are way "out there" in left field somewhere

Let me explain why I am so confused.

I hope you know something about baseball.

I am right-handed. When I was young, my step-father gave me a baseball glove for my birthday.

He said, pointing to one of my hands: "This is the right hand to wear the glove on."

And then pointing to my other hand, he said: "And this is the hand that is left to throw the ball.":faint:

Looks like a one-on-one debate is quite effective here and both of you are having a good time and respectfully reading each other's data (presumably).

I have really enjoyed this discussion. I think what makes it effective is neither of us is disrespecting the other. There have been others who have posted on this thread (and others) that have not been so respectful and I've had to bite my tongue, uh fingers, uh keyboard, and not respond.

I am impressed and I am learning in the process. I really appreciate gadgetlady taking the time to present some names that I asked for. It will help me out a lot.

Glad to hear it. I don't expect anyone who believes in evolution to run out and espouse creation with no research, nor vice versa. We all have to reach our own conclusions based on the evidence and how it makes sense to us. Dialogue is good. I've always been amazed at those who mock or disregard, because to me it's like yelling, "Look at me! I'm narrow-minded!"

There's another thing I love about this dialogue. It's inspiring me to do even more research than I've already done. This is an interesting article:

It is well known that creatures which live permanently in water generally breathe through gills, not lungs. The lungfishes, which are able to survive long periods when their watery habitat dries up, are regarded as a peculiar exception.

Most people, having been conditioned by evolutionary texts, believe that the only other permanent waterdwellers to have lungs are the whales and porpoises. These are believed to have descended from land creatures which later evolved back into the sea. The scenario goes like this: fish (no lungs) —› [out of sea] —› amphibian (lungs) —› reptile (lungs) —› land mammal (lungs) —› [back to sea] —› porpoise (lungs)

Most fish have a gas-filled swimbladder, which helps their flotation. For a long time it was believed that this swim-bladder was a logical ‘first step’ towards the later development of lungs as vertebrates conquered the land. (A conquest existing only in the realm of fantasy, by the way, not demonstrated by fossils.) No one disputes the fact that swim-bladders and lungs develop from the same basic tissues, and from the same type of out-pouching of the foregut. In the evolution model, this is interpreted in terms of common ancestry; in the creation model, in terms of the same Grundbauplan (basic building plan), with creative variations on the same theme.

Awkward

So how do these neat evolutionary stories square up with reality? The first awkward fact, usually not mentioned in high school evolutionary texts, is that there are actually many modern species of fish (not mammals, but real fish) which have lungs as well as gills. For instance, among the so-called ‘higher’ bony fish (the teleosts) many species of electric fish have them. Of the chondrostei, the so-called ‘primitive’ bony fish, the Polypterus is so dependent on its paired lungs that this fish can drown if prevented from surfacing.

An even more bitter blow for evolutionists (again seldom seen in basic texts) is that fossil evidence has come to light forcing a 180-degree reversal in the ‘swim-bladder to lung’ story. Lungs appear to be much more ‘ancient’ than swim-bladders, so by this reasoning, lungs must have evolved into swim-bladders!

The renowned comparative anatomists Romer and Parsons tell us in their book The Vertebrate Body (Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1978, p. 329) that there is evidence that the most ancient (according to evolutionary tenets) placoderm fishes already had functioning lungs, which would mean that all ‘primitive’ jawed fish had them. The diagram with its captions shows the distribution of lungs among living and a few fossil species of fish.

All of this is of course consistent with the simultaneous creation of all water-dwelling creatures on day five of creation week, with variations on the Grundbauplane. Whether endowed with gills, lungs, or a combination of both, all fish, living or extinct, appear to be (or have been) well equipped for the requirements of their way of life.

The ‘obvious’ evolution of lungs from swim-bladders turns out to be a myth. In addition, a literal evolutionary- chronological reading of the fossil record shows that evolution must have had remarkable foresight. In spite of the fact that lungs are not needed for survival (fish being able to cope well with gills) they appear and are prevalent among fishes at least 100 million years (on the alleged evolutionary time-scale) before their (imaginary) migration to the land. How wonderful of evolution to develop, all by chance of course, such a ‘test pattern’, ready to be taken out of mothballs when required. No wonder such awkward facts are not generally highlighted when presenting impressive-sounding evolutionary ‘just-so’ stories.

Joachim Vetter, Dr. Med.hab., Ph.D. has medical and biological qualifications, and is a frequent contributor to the Swiss/German creation-oriented magazine Factum. His special interest is the comparative anatomy of fossil and recent forms.

I missed the science that proves that on day five all the fish were created.

I missed the science that proves that on day five all the fish were created.

I think you missed what I've been saying all along, that no theory of origins can be definitively proven. My preference is to believe the theory that most closely fits the evidence in the world around us. Your preference seems to be to dismiss creation theory as a knee-jerk reaction because you don't want to consider the option that the Bible might be literal. The article I posted was one of hundreds that I could post which demonstrates some serious flaws in evolutionary theory.