God has preferences!

irishsaint

I was just wondering if it was just me or if anyone else was wondering why, if God created all the animals, why he concentrated on Humans. If he loves all his creations so much, why have moral rules been adopted for Humans and not for the rest of the animal kingdom? My pet cat doesnt have to marry yet it has had pre marital sex at least 3 times because thats how many times its had kittens. Are we the only species in the animal kingdom that believe in god? Also, in one tree in South America a scientist found almost 1,200 species of insect, when you consider the vast amount of bio organisms that must have been created by God, Humans are so minute as percentage ratio - again asks me to ask why he concentrated on us?

Dudess

Because humans created god, not the other way round.

Ooop, don't think I can say that here...

Akrasia

Because he loves us, and gave us dominion of all the animals on the earth... even those animals that died out millions of years before we climbed down from the trees and those animals that kill and maim humans every day (either directly or through the spread of disease)
He also gave us viruses to preside over... though forgot to supply us with any cure, but i'm sure that's all a part of gods mysterious plan that we're not allowed to question because it's beyond our capability to understand

He presumably also gave us dominion over all the alien life forms out there if any exist even though they would exist completely independently to us and the chances of us ever coming into even the briefest contact with them is very remote.

faceman

A similar case could be made about why god created angels yet holds us in a different, some say, higher esteem.

Many species are scientifically shown to have varying level of consciousness and their basis and purpose of survival is to reproduce.

For the record, God never said the pre marital sex was wrong, the church did. It is the morals attached to it that we humans are left to chose.

Akrasia

faceman wrote: »

Many animal species are scientifically shown to have varying level of consciousness and their basis and purpose of survival is to reproduce.

I heard this argument before from a 'moral philosophy' lecturer when I was at college in Maynooth. He was a priest, and said that humans were the only creatures capable of making moral choices because we were the only 'animals' that had consciousness and free choice, while every other species were essentially robots that only follow hard wired rules and basic instincts.

Of course this is complete nonsense.
Many animals have personalities, they have imaginations, they have higher cognitive functions. Primates can be taught sign language and can communicate thoughts and emotions to people.
The differences in emotional and cognitive ability between us and our animal cousins are not that big.

faceman

i think you might have misinterpreted my point. I said many species (i didnt mean specifically animal, I will edit that)

I didnt say all, nor did you.

wolfsbane

irishsaint wrote: »

I was just wondering if it was just me or if anyone else was wondering why, if God created all the animals, why he concentrated on Humans. If he loves all his creations so much, why have moral rules been adopted for Humans and not for the rest of the animal kingdom? My pet cat doesnt have to marry yet it has had pre marital sex at least 3 times because thats how many times its had kittens. Are we the only species in the animal kingdom that believe in god? Also, in one tree in South America a scientist found almost 1,200 species of insect, when you consider the vast amount of bio organisms that must have been created by God, Humans are so minute as percentage ratio - again asks me to ask why he concentrated on us?

Because only Man was made in His image. The animals do not have a moral dimension. So it is a matter of quality rather than quantity.

I think you would agree that your sweetheart is infinitely more precious than all the pet cats in the world? They are quantitively superior, but not qualitively.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

wolfsbane

Akrasia wrote: »

Because he loves us, and gave us dominion of all the animals on the earth... even those animals that died out millions of years before we climbed down from the trees and those animals that kill and maim humans every day (either directly or through the spread of disease)
He also gave us viruses to preside over... though forgot to supply us with any cure, but i'm sure that's all a part of gods mysterious plan that we're not allowed to question because it's beyond our capability to understand

He presumably also gave us dominion over all the alien life forms out there if any exist even though they would exist completely independently to us and the chances of us ever coming into even the briefest contact with them is very remote.

You got the first phrase right - pity about the rest.

We did not come down from the trees, but began life prefectly fit for cultivation and care of animals.

The animals did not live millions of years before us - just a matter of 24-48 hours.

Our dominion over the earth was drastically curtailed when we sinned and death and suffering entered the world - for man and beast.

There are no aliens out there - there's only us, the angels and demons - and most importantly, God.

wolfsbane

faceman said:

A similar case could be made about why god created angels yet holds us in a different, some say, higher esteem.

Yes, in a sense that is very true:
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

For the record, God never said the pre marital sex was wrong, the church did. It is the morals attached to it that we humans are left to chose.

You have been sadly misinformed:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You got the first phrase right - pity about the rest.

We did not come down from the trees, but began life prefectly fit for cultivation and care of animals.

The animals did not live millions of years before us - just a matter of 24-48 hours.

Our dominion over the earth was drastically curtailed when we sinned and death and suffering entered the world - for man and beast.

There are no aliens out there - there's only us, the angels and demons - and most importantly, God.

And the viruses?

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because only Man was made in His image. The animals do not have a moral dimension. So it is a matter of quality rather than quantity.

There are a lot of zoologists who would disagree with you

What is morality? Well it's a philosophical problem that has been debated for thousands of years, but I think all morality is based firmly on the principle of empathy. (even jesus used empathy to teach right from wrong ''love thy neighbour as you love yourself')
There is a lot of evidence that some animals have a sense of empathy

He found that consolation was universal among the great apes but generally absent from monkeys — among macaques, mothers will not even reassure an injured infant. To console another, Dr. de Waal argues, requires empathy and a level of self-awareness that only apes and humans seem to possess. And consideration of empathy quickly led him to explore the conditions for morality.

Though human morality may end in notions of rights and justice and fine ethical distinctions, it begins, Dr. de Waal says, in concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. At this lower level, primatologists have shown, there is what they consider to be a sizable overlap between the behavior of people and other social primates.

Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

I think you would agree that your sweetheart is infinitely more precious than all the pet cats in the world? They are quantitively superior, but not qualitively.

That's just a subjective judgement. I would consider my sweetheart to be more precious than a hundred people that I have never met or have any relationship with. (if for example, she needed an operation that cost 10,000 I would do anything to pay for it, and if there was a natural disaster in a distant country just as I managed to raise the money, I wouldn't send all the cash abroad where it could save a hundred lives and not just one.)
But that doesn't mean that my girlfriend is objectively better or more valuable than any of the individuals who got trapped in the natural disaster.

And there are lots of people who would gladly sacrifice my girlfriend if the only way to save her was to kill every pet cat in the world.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

(way off topic) who was he talking to?

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

You got the first phrase right - pity about the rest.

We did not come down from the trees, but began life prefectly fit for cultivation and care of animals.

There are hundreds of years of very convincing archeological evidence to contradict that. Domestication of animals was a very slow process that took thousands of years and in doing so, transformed both humans and the animals that we tamed.

The animals did not live millions of years before us - just a matter of 24-48 hours.

Yeah, You do know the Flintstones wasn't a documentary.
There is no way that all of the animals that we have found fossils for all co-existed on the same planet at the same time.

Our dominion over the earth was drastically curtailed when we sinned and death and suffering entered the world - for man and beast.

So the garden of eden was the size of the planet, and our 'dominion' consisted of only 2 people? When god said in genesis that we should 'Be fruitful and multiply' why didn't eve get knockedup until after they were thrown out of the garden? Why were we only able to 'fill the earth and subdue it' after our 'dominion' had been 'curtailed'

There are no aliens out there - there's only us, the angels and demons - and most importantly, God.

how do you know there is no life on other planets? If life is discovered, does that mean you'll renounce your faith?

faceman

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have been sadly misinformed:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

That wasnt the word of God though and it is a bit vague.

wolfsbane

faceman wrote: »

That wasnt the word of God though and it is a bit vague.

Maybe not of your god, but certainly of the God who inspired the Bible authors:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Vague? Check out the usage in both OT and NT - someone who had sex outside marriage was guilty of a capital offence under Moses' Law; and their immoral standing is undoubted in the NT.

kowloon

Dudess wrote: »

Because humans created god, not the other way round.

Ooop, don't think I can say that here...

BUMP

wolfsbane

Akrasia wrote: »

There are hundreds of years of very convincing archeological evidence to contradict that. Domestication of animals was a very slow process that took thousands of years and in doing so, transformed both humans and the animals that we tamed.


Yeah, You do know the Flintstones wasn't a documentary.
There is no way that all of the animals that we have found fossils for all co-existed on the same planet at the same time.


So the garden of eden was the size of the planet, and our 'dominion' consisted of only 2 people? When god said in genesis that we should 'Be fruitful and multiply' why didn't eve get knockedup until after they were thrown out of the garden? Why were we only able to 'fill the earth and subdue it' after our 'dominion' had been 'curtailed'

how do you know there is no life on other planets? If life is discovered, does that mean you'll renounce your faith?

For the Creation/Evolution arguments, see The Bible, Creation and Prophecy thread.

No, the garden of Eden was a garden eastward in Eden, that is eastward from where Moses wrote this, near the Euphrates.

It doesn't say how long they were in the Garden - seems not long, since indeed she had no children there.

Had they not sinned, our dominion would have extended throughout the world, as countless millions of children, grandchildren, etc spread out - none of them dying off.

We know by inference that there are no aliens - God has revealed His mind to us about crucial things. Suddenly finding another class of beings would be a big ommission. It would cause me to have a complete revision of my hermenuetics - one that would leave me uncertain of anything.

Nerin

Dudess wrote: »

Because humans created god, not the other way round.

Ooop, don't think I can say that here...

i believe what you meant to say was =

Voltaire wrote:

If God made us in his image we have certainly returned the compliment

Akrasia wrote: »

He presumably also gave us dominion over all the alien life forms out there if any exist

don't presume,thats how religious arguments evolved
also im sure alien life(if any) would have something to say about that.

faceman wrote: »

A similar case could be made about why god created angels yet holds us in a different, some say, higher esteem.

Many species are scientifically shown to have varying level of consciousness and their basis and purpose of survival is to reproduce.

For the record, God never said the pre marital sex was wrong, the church did. It is the morals attached to it that we humans are left to chose.

i agree with Faceman

wolfsbane wrote: »

You got the first phrase right - pity about the rest.

We did not come down from the trees, but began life prefectly fit for cultivation and care of animals.

The animals did not live millions of years before us - just a matter of 24-48 hours.

Our dominion over the earth was drastically curtailed when we sinned and death and suffering entered the world - for man and beast.

There are no aliens out there - there's only us, the angels and demons - and most importantly, God.

lack of proof, post = blagh.
Theres already a Creationism vs Evolution thread.
And there is also a forum that discusses Aliens and the like.

faceman wrote: »

That wasnt the word of God though and it is a bit vague.

this could start another argument
lets just agree that humans wrote the bible (whether or not they were inspired by god)

wolfsbane wrote: »

For the Creation/Evolution arguments, see The Bible, Creation and Prophecy thread.

beaten to it

@ Irishsaint
the unfortunate cop out answer is god has a plan, we will never know.
in fairness to christians though, god being a higher being would (logically) mean we aren't really going to understand everything it does.

Pompey Magnus

God certainly has preferences and not just among species, I mean between humans as well. When he deals out souls prior to birth he sends his favorite souls to be born into Christian families, thereby giving them a very good chance of remaining Christian and getting into Heaven to be with him forever. The souls he is not too keen on he will send to Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc families where they probably will not convert to Christianity so that he probably won't have to put up with many of them in the afterlife. A few might get in but the vast majority won't.

As for the souls he really, really doesn't like, well he has a very special tactic reserved especially for them - he invented dreadful features called rationality and skepticism which causes those infected with these afflictions to find it impossible to believe in ancient stories which cannot be proven. He gave them this as he will get the pleasure of watching them condemning themselves to torture.

Nerin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

God certainly has preferences and not just among species, I mean between humans as well. When he deals out souls prior to birth he sends his favorite souls to be born into Christian families, thereby giving them a very good chance of remaining Christian and getting into Heaven to be with him forever. The souls he is not too keen on he will send to Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc families where they probably will not convert to Christianity so that he probably won't have to put up with many of them in the afterlife. A few might get in but the vast majority won't.

As for the souls he really, really doesn't like, well he has a very special tactic reserved especially for them - he invented dreadful features called rationality and skepticism which causes those infected with these afflictions to find it impossible to believe in ancient stories which cannot be proven. He gave them this as he will get the pleasure of watching them condemning themselves to torture.

first paragraph had me ready to rant

second paragraph = [rant] deleted#

i also LOL'd

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

What is morality? Well it's a philosophical problem that has been debated for thousands of years, but I think all morality is based firmly on the principle of empathy.

If you define morality that way, then I would agree with you about the animals. But it is not the sense conveyed by the term the image of God.

That's just a subjective judgement. I would consider my sweetheart to be more precious than a hundred people that I have never met or have any relationship with. (if for example, she needed an operation that cost 10,000 I would do anything to pay for it, and if there was a natural disaster in a distant country just as I managed to raise the money, I wouldn't send all the cash abroad where it could save a hundred lives and not just one.)
But that doesn't mean that my girlfriend is objectively better or more valuable than any of the individuals who got trapped in the natural disaster.

And there are lots of people who would gladly sacrifice my girlfriend if the only way to save her was to kill every pet cat in the world.

They might indeed, such is man's subjective morality. But she is still objectively worth more than all cats.

(way off topic) who was he talking to?

This is the Trinity speaking - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

And the viruses?

Did God make pathogenic viruses?
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1686/

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

God certainly has preferences and not just among species, I mean between humans as well. When he deals out souls prior to birth he sends his favorite souls to be born into Christian families, thereby giving them a very good chance of remaining Christian and getting into Heaven to be with him forever. The souls he is not too keen on he will send to Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc families where they probably will not convert to Christianity so that he probably won't have to put up with many of them in the afterlife. A few might get in but the vast majority won't.

As for the souls he really, really doesn't like, well he has a very special tactic reserved especially for them - he invented dreadful features called rationality and skepticism which causes those infected with these afflictions to find it impossible to believe in ancient stories which cannot be proven. He gave them this as he will get the pleasure of watching them condemning themselves to torture.

Yes, God does have preferences. He could have condemned us all to hell for our sins, but He chose to save some and sent His Son to atone for their sins.

Those sinners He chose are termed the elect; those He passed by, the reprobate. Being born in a Christian enviroment may well be a sign that God is going to save you - but it is no guarantee. Likewise, being raised a heathen, Muslim, or militant atheist is no bar to being saved. God intervenes and saves people from every nation. There are none to hard for Him.
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

1 Corinthians 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Akrasia said:

If you define morality that way, then I would agree with you about the animals. But it is not the sense conveyed by the term the image of God.

I had a feeling you (or someone else) would do that. Define morality so that it specifically only includes people.
Ethics is about the rightness and wrongness of our actions, and we judge people based on their intentions and the consequences of their choices.

Animals often have free will and can make choices. Sometimes those choices reflect an innate sense of empathy, compassion, and even love.

They might indeed, such is man's subjective morality. But she is still objectively worth more than all cats.

That is not a claim that can be made objectively. Value is a purely subjective concept.

This is the Trinity speaking - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So he talks to himself. right....

Fanny Cradock

Dudess wrote: »

Because humans created god, not the other way round.

Ooop, don't think I can say that here...

I'm disappointed, Dudess. There is so little in the way of substantive evidence in your post that I can only imagine your intent is to rile up the locals.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm disappointed, Dudess. There is so little in the way of substantive evidence in your post that I can only imagine your intent is to rile up the locals.

And what makes it particularly rich is that Dudess has the words "Troll DESPISER!" as part of her signature.

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, fnny tht


(Srry Dudess - couldnt stp myslf)

Nerin

meh, this could be simply summed up by saying God probably prefers if you are a good person.
then the morality thread it would be sent to the humanities thread.
unless someone starts talking for god (again) and listing what he/she/it wants/expects....which always happens

Dudess

Not trolling, that is my view. You may not like it, but the idea of god is so preposterous to me that what I suggested seems like a plausible explanation.

Fanny Cradock

So I take it you are a fully fledged convert to atheism now? I still read your comment as something intended to provoke a negative reaction, not to encourage debate. Tell me, do you often find that you harbour trollish tendencies

Nerin

<in before take it to feedback>
meh in fairness the thread goes on,if people have a real issue thats fine,but feedback that mofo, keep this on topic, its going good.
also i wouldnt see it as an issue, its as if i said he has no preferences because he is a koala bear that loves all no matter what.
anyway, more posts from people,im liking this thread.

the above post is not an attack on Fanny Cradock, subject to t&c, calls may be monitored.

Soul Winner

Akrasia wrote: »

how do you know there is no life on other planets?

Probably the same way that atheists know there's no such thing as God.

Akrasia wrote: »

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

(way off topic) who was he talking to?

Excellent question. He was talking to the 'Elohiym’ אלהים . The word 'God' in the Old Testament is 'Elowahh' and the plural form of 'Elowahh is 'Elohyim' meaning Gods. Genesis 1:1 reads בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ translated into English "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" But the plural form Elohyim is what is being used in the original Hebrew so literally from the Hebrew it reads: "In the beginning Elohyim (Gods not Elowahh or God ) created the Heavens and the earth". Who are the Elohim? Probably the highest form of Angelic beings there is, i.e the Cherubim And Seraphim etc. There is only one supreme God though, 'The LORD of Hosts' or litterally "The LORD of the Gods of the Hosts"

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably the same way that atheists know there's no such thing as God.

Rational consideration and honesty?

The fact of the matter is the the universe is big. Really really really big. The idea that the conditions for the chemical reactions that produced the start of life (self-replicating molecules) hasn't happened some where else in the universe is rather unlikely.

Even if the chances of life developing in a particular solar system are 1 in a 100 billion (that is just a complete guess by the way), life has still developed on average 4 times in your galaxy (there are approx 400 billion stars in the milky way)

An average galaxy has 10 billion start in it (the Milky way is larger than average). There are approx 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That is about 1,000 billion billion star systems.

So if the odds of a particular solar system having the correct conditions for life are still 1 in a 100 billion, life has still developed on average 10 billion times in the universe.

For life to be unlikely to develop more than once in the universe the odds would have to be greater than 1 to 10^21. That is a 1 with 21 zeros after it.

Given that self replicating molecules don't seem that difficult to arise, the idea that life has not developed any where else in the universe is therefore rather unlikely, given the size of the universe and the relative ease of the conditions required for life to develop.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Did God make pathogenic viruses?
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1686/

The logic appears to be that because some viruses can reside in a host organism without causing illness, this must have been the original purpose of viruses (a rather large assumption), and illness was introduce by later mutation (or sinful acts on our part) which "broke" the viruses and lead to it causing illness.

Good to see the perversion of science continues ... :rolleyes:

By the way Bergman got his "PhD" from Columbia Pacific University, a diploma mill that has since had it's accreditation removed.

Dudess

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So I take it you are a fully fledged convert to atheism now? I still read your comment as something intended to provoke a negative reaction, not to encourage debate. Tell me, do you often find that you harbour trollish tendencies

Look, I have an opinion and this is a discussion forum. Just because you don't happen to like my opinion really doesn't give you any reason to accuse me of trolling. Now, the OP asked a question and I gave a reply. The reason I added "ooops, probably shouldn't have said that here" (or whatever) is because of the reaction I expected - i.e. yours.
I don't know whether I'm an atheist or an agnostic. I believe there's probably some form of higher power (not because I want to believe we're all being looked after - we're most certainly not - but because it doesn't make sense to me for there not to be a higher power) but I certainly don't believe in the benevolent, omnipotent god of Christianity, so if that makes me an atheist, then I guess I'm an atheist.

JimiTime

^^ i think you are being accused of trolling beacause of you breaking the charter:

"Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!"

what you said, certainly had a conclusion your audience would disagree with.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Rational consideration and honesty?

The fact of the matter is the the universe is big. Really really really big. The idea that the conditions for the chemical reactions that produced the start of life (self-replicating molecules) hasn't happened some where else in the universe is rather unlikely.

Even if the chances of life developing in a particular solar system are 1 in a 100 billion (that is just a complete guess by the way), life has still developed on average 4 times in your galaxy (there are approx 400 billion stars in the milky way)

An average galaxy has 10 billion start in it (the Milky way is larger than average). There are approx 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That is about 1,000 billion billion star systems.

So if the odds of a particular solar system having the correct conditions for life are still 1 in a 100 billion, life has still developed on average 10 billion times in the universe.

For life to be unlikely to develop more than once in the universe the odds would have to be greater than 1 to 10^21. That is a 1 with 21 zeros after it.

Given that self replicating molecules don't seem that difficult to arise, the idea that life has not developed any where else in the universe is therefore rather unlikely, given the size of the universe and the relative ease of the conditions required for life to develop.

Well put. I have no problem with that at all. The Bible doesn't say that there is no life on any other planets so if we found out tomorrow that there was then so what. Wouldn't phase my faith in the least. The Bible does say that there is a heaven though and that there are beings that live there with some form of life and it is not on earth so the question is; "Where is it?" Is it in space or outside of space and time? I don't know. I doubt very much that we are capable of knowing.

What is your view in relation to the multple universes or multiverse theories? Do you beleive that it is possible for there to be multible universes? Where every other possible outcome of events that doesn't take place in our universe actually takes place in those?

Just curious...

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably the same way that atheists know there's no such thing as God.



Excellent question. He was talking to the 'Elohiym’ אלהים . The word 'God' in the Old Testament is 'Elowahh' and the plural form of 'Elowahh is 'Elohyim' meaning Gods. Genesis 1:1 reads בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ translated into English "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" But the plural form Elohyim is what is being used in the original Hebrew so literally from the Hebrew it reads: "In the beginning Elohyim (Gods not Elowahh or God ) created the Heavens and the earth". Who are the Elohim? Probably the highest form of Angelic beings there is, i.e the Cherubim And Seraphim etc. There is only one supreme God though, 'The LORD of Hosts' or litterally "The LORD of the Gods of the Hosts"

Need to correct you there, Soul Winner. Elohyim is used throughout the OT for God in its plural intensive - singular meaning. E.g:
Genesis 35:11 Also God said to him: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The logic appears to be that because some viruses can reside in a host organism without causing illness, this must have been the original purpose of viruses (a rather large assumption), and illness was introduce by later mutation (or sinful acts on our part) which "broke" the viruses and lead to it causing illness.

Good to see the perversion of science continues ... :rolleyes:

By the way Bergman got his "PhD" from Columbia Pacific University, a diploma mill that has since had it's accreditation removed.

It certainly establishes the case that viruses need not be contrary to a perfect human body - the issue you implied in your question.

As for Columbia Pacific University, there seems to be some dispute about the findings:
http://netnotes.altcpualumni.org/?page_id=20

But it could be he was scammed. I know of a theologian friend who submitted fine work to a distance-learning Uni, only to be less than impressed by their standards.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It certainly establishes the case that viruses need not be contrary to a perfect human body - the issue you implied in your question.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is why did God create viruses? I acknowledge that the idea that viruses were originally harmless and only became harmful for some unknown reason after the Fall is as plausible as anything else in the Young Earth Creationist idea of the world, but it still doesn't explain why they were created in the first place, particularly with God knowing what would happen.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is your view in relation to the multple universes or multiverse theories? Do you beleive that it is possible for there to be multible universes? Where every other possible outcome of events that doesn't take place in our universe actually takes place in those?

Just curious...

Well anything is possible. I don't see any reason why such a system couldn't exist, and it would (at least as far as my limited understanding) go some what to explain some of the things scientists find in quantum physics. But equally it might not be true. Such a thing is very difficult to test properly.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Did God make pathogenic viruses?
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1686/

Ladies and Gentlemen, the real Jerry Bergman.

Tenure, credential controversy

Bergman was hired in the 1973-74 school year by Bowling Green State University. He was initially employed as an assistant professor but was reduced to the rank of instructor later for not receiving his Ph.D. as soon as he had expected. His employment was continued until 1976 when the university recommended that he receive a terminal contract for 1976-1977. Bergman's contract for 1976-77 year was changed from terminal to temporary while studying for his Ph.D at Wayne State. In 1978 Bergman was denied tenure. Bergman believed this was due to his involvement in the creation movement and his religious beliefs and subsequently filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the basis of religion, with both agencies ultimately ruling that he was not let go due to his religious beliefs, but because his peers voted to terminate him.

Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green State University in federal district court in 1980, alleging that his due process rights had been violated and that he had been denied tenure on the basis of his religious views. The due process claim arose from his allegation that he never received annual written evaluations as required by the University charter. The case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed but the appeal was turned down in 1987. The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he "had no psychological credentials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman#Tenure.2C_credential_controversy

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Ladies and Gentlemen, the real Jerry Bergman.

Thank you for that bit of the story. It is good to note that he still disputes the issue.

But its a pity you did not give the whole Bergman story. Here's the bit you left out:

Dr. Bergman is an adjunct associate professor at Medical University of Ohio and also teaches biochemistry, [biology], chemistry and physics at Northwest State Community College in Ohio. He has taught at the college level for 35 years including seven years at Bowling Green State University, 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 20 years at Northwest State. He started as a graduate student in biochemistry at Medical College of Ohio (MCO; now Medical University of Ohio) in 1985, and was later hired as an adjunct instructor and research associate in the experimental pathology department and he still is still on the faculty at MCO. He has also worked for several years as a therapist at various psychological clinics including Arlington Psychological associates in Toledo, Ohio. Bergman has nine academic degrees. He obtained an Associate in Arts degree in Biology and Behavioral Science, from Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1967; a BSc from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in 1970, with majors in sociology, biology, and psychology; and an M.Ed. in counseling and psychology from Wayne State in 1971. He also studied for a PhD in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology from Wayne State, and received an M.A. in social psychology from Bowling Green State in 1986.

In 1992 Bergman received his Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded. Bergman has written a detailed perspective on the school's fall from grace.[citation needed]

Bergman also received a Master of Science degree in biomedical science, from the Medical College of Ohio in 1999. In 2001 he obtained a Master of Public Health degree from the Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (consisting of the Medical College of Ohio, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University). In 2004 he received another MA from Medical College of Ohio. Dr. Bergman has also completed coursework at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Miami University (where he was accepted into the doctoral program in chemistry, so far completing 33 semester hours), and the University of California, Berkeley. He now has over 700 publications in a variety of scientific and popular journals, plus 20 books and monographs. His work has now been translated into 12 languages and he has spoken widely in the United States, Canada and Europe on his research.

He is a member of Mensa, and received the 1998 Edgar Langsdorf award for excellence in writing.

Bergman's opinions on creationism are often published by Answers In Genesis. In the 1990s he was also known for his Usenet postings to the talk.origins newsgroup. Many of his views are highly controversial, such as implying a causal relationship between Darwinism, Nazism, and the Holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman#Tenure.2C_credential_controversy

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the issue.

The issue is why did God create viruses? I acknowledge that the idea that viruses were originally harmless and only became harmful for some unknown reason after the Fall is as plausible as anything else in the Young Earth Creationist idea of the world, but it still doesn't explain why they were created in the first place, particularly with God knowing what would happen.

With modern science still in the dark as to the functions of many parts of our biology, I think Creationists hardly can be blamed for not knowing what the original sole function of viruses were.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

With modern science still in the dark as to the functions of many parts of our biology, I think Creationists hardly can be blamed for not knowing what the original sole function of viruses were.

Don't you think they should probably stop claiming, based on the Bible, that they do, that viruses were original created for the benefit of man in Eden?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

With modern science still in the dark as to the functions of many parts of our biology, I think Creationists hardly can be blamed for not knowing what the original sole function of viruses were.

Viruses are degenerate life forms in that they are totally dependent on other living hosts for their survival and multiplication. As dependent degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore NOT Created by God during Creation Week.

Viruses may have come about by the processes triggered at the time of the Fall and the actions of post Fall Humanity may also have assisted in their emergence and establishment.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't you think they should probably stop claiming, based on the Bible, that they do, that viruses were original created for the benefit of man in Eden?

Why should they? Everything was created for the benefit of man in Eden.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Viruses are degenerate life forms in that they are totally dependent on other living hosts for their survival and multiplication. As dependent degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore NOT Created by God during Creation Week.

Viruses may have come about by the processes triggered at the time of the Fall and the actions of post Fall Humanity may also have assisted in their emergence and establishment.

We agree that as dependent degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore NOT Created by God during Creation Week. But if they were not originally dependent degenerate life forms, then that objection is removed.

But I agree also - with my scant knowledge of how biology works, that your latter scenario also seems possible.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why should they? Everything was created for the benefit of man in Eden.

including the serpent?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why should they? Everything was created for the benefit of man in Eden.

Clearly ... a forbidden fruit tree that cannot be eaten from clearly had unlimited benefit. As does a fallen rebellious angel in the form of a serpent :rolleyes:

Do you have anything to base your position on that is actually scientific?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

We agree that as dependent degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore NOT Created by God during Creation Week. But if they were not originally dependent degenerate life forms, then that objection is removed.

But I agree also - with my scant knowledge of how biology works, that your latter scenario also seems possible.

My comments were originally posted by J C. :pac:

Don't worry - your scant knowledge of how biology works in no way hinders you from wild speculation on the many and varied effects of the Fall. :pac: