Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such lines of reasoning, taken to their ultimate conclusion, justify notions that animals don't suffer, or love, or have feelings, or exhibit loyalty and devotion. So be careful where you go with that thinking.
Animals have been supposedly created by God in order to serve humans. When a dog displays love for its master, it is an instinct that has been specially designed by God so that humans could put the non-human (dog) species to personal use. Animals are in principle disposable entities, no different from wood, water and other resources.
Animals have been supposedly created by God in order to serve humans. When a dog displays love for its master, it is an instinct that has been specially designed by God so that humans could put the non-human (dog) species to personal use. Animals are in principle disposable entities, no different from wood, water and other resources.
Animals have been supposedly created by God in order to serve humans. When a dog displays love for its master, it is an instinct that has been specially designed by God so that humans could put the non-human (dog) species to personal use. Animals are in principle disposable entities, no different from wood, water and other resources.
/the Fundamentalist line of thinking.
I know a fundamentalist who put her kid's dog down because it didn't match the color of her new couch. So none of this surprises me.
The Bible makes some people experts on everything. No education, or reasoning needed.
No children? They are experts on children.
No wife? They are an expert on the sex they are not having, and relationships that they do not have.
( moment of silence please)
No empathy and love? They are experts on the entire human race.
No connection, or love for animals? They are experts in the behavior of every species.
They are true experts on ignorance. They believe ignorance is inspired. One book to rule them all.
So true however i cannot rep you yet. I had two pure breed dogs two months apart with many of the same ancestors and in some ways they were so much alike and in some ways so different from each orhers, much the same as human siblings.
And I would rather be considered stupid by some others because I have studied and will always be learning about the natural and physical world then to consider myself knowledgeable by making proclamations about the physical and natural world by reading a book that does not even claim any expertise in those two realms. The Mind of a Raven by a renown biologists or any of the dog books by Stanley Coren or any textbook on animal behaviour provides insight to the complicated minds of animals.
What I do fail to understand is how learning about animal behaviour or geomorphic processes have anything to do with one's belief in a God. You don't need to be an atheist to understand that animals do think or that rivers and glaciers create and shape landscapes. Learning about this world, or of another makes me neither stupid nor of having a life not worth living. The Ark Park , in my mind, promotes ignoring what we can see or infer and is certainly promoting a singular religious viewpoint and it is not even all of Christianity but a subset of it.
Jeff is playing his best card here: Reasoning. Well, it's something that we have that no other animal has, yep, I accept that. But "It must be a god that dunnit" is not the right answer. So, Jeff, you are flogging a dead horse. Especially since -as my fellow posters say - you can see signs of it in a very basic (and as YOU say) - instinctive -form. Consciousness, social behaviours, problem solving, instinctive survival - reaction and a lot of what makes up our thought can be traced back to animal consciousness and that back to mere evolved instinctive reaction. Our reasoning power makes more sense as something that evolved in order to enable a primate that really hadn't much else to use to survive.
Jeff, this isn't going to help you prove anything. Particularly that there was a Flood, and Ark, and that Ken Hamm's replica is anything but a curiosity or that school classes should be dragged along there to be indoctrinated with Creationist bunkum.
You're right. It is a dead horse. I'm not going to get sucked into another evolution debate. You're never going to convince me that we are just meaningless bags of chemicals or animals and I'm not going to convince that human beings are unique individuals made in the image of God either. SO leave it at that and move on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
moment of silence please)
