TheFireBreathes
04-28-2007, 01:22 PM
..from other animals? Not bibically but scientifically. So like if I were trying to explain to an athiest that we humans were created for a greater purpose than just random chance, what would I say?

I know our brains are more complex, and we experience pain and love and joy probably more powerfull than others. But does anyone have and solid facts or anything that makes us more different from them?

Geneva
04-28-2007, 04:28 PM
Well.. we have obviously adapted and evolved better than any other animal out there. I mean, we have technology and things like that, whereas the dogs are pretty much the same as they were 10 years ago.

I don't really know any facts. Except we have opposable thumbs...

DarkestRose
04-28-2007, 04:28 PM
Is this a bit like the thread on what is consciousness?

The Lamma
04-28-2007, 04:54 PM
Yeah, check out that thread for a lot more discussion on this.

aliengurl7
04-28-2007, 07:35 PM
...and we experience pain and love and joy probably more powerfull than others

I don't know about that. Have you ever seen how excited wolves get when a new pup is born into the pack? They literally jump for joy. Or have you ever watched that video on MSNBC when a full grown lion who was rescued from being abused and gave the lady who saved him a big hug and he even kissed her. That's showing a great deal of love there. I think that's how we are similiar to them. I think the major difference is that we can act like animals when were suppose to know better.

unshakeable15
04-28-2007, 09:56 PM
I don't really know any facts. Except we have poopsable thumbs...
It's been shown that some primates have opposable thumbs.

See? (http://www.primates.com/faq/index.html#23)

DarkestRose
04-28-2007, 10:03 PM
I am really thinking that this goes back to the question of consciousness and probably should be linked there or something.

TheFireBreathes
04-29-2007, 11:22 AM
I don't know about that. Have you ever seen how excited wolves get when a new pup is born into the pack? They literally jump for joy. Or have you ever watched that video on MSNBC when a full grown lion who was rescued from being abused and gave the lady who saved him a big hug and he even kissed her. That's showing a great deal of love there. I think that's how we are similiar to them. I think the major difference is that we can act like animals when were suppose to know better.

but do you see animals become emotionally attached to the ones they mate with? do they get their hearts broken when some other animal screws them over or mates with another animal? i dunno, i just think our pain and love go much deeper than that.

on_a_mission
04-29-2007, 11:56 AM
I am unclear of what it is you are trying to prove. Are you trying to prove cretionism via the argument that humans are different than the rest of the animals on the planet? Are you attempting to use the watchmaker's analogy of someone finding a watch on the beach and seeing it's complexity assume that it had to have a creator? This line of argument will never have an impact on the "athiest". What you will hear back is "If the creation is so complex as to require a creator, then it follows that the creator is even more complex and would require a creator - who created your god?". Or in your example, how is the fact that we are different than other animals prove that we were created by god?

The best proof of god is the bible. Since the an athesist will not except the bible as proof, the only argument that will convince an athiest is your love and the example of your christ lead life.

Just my 2cents worth.

skynes
04-29-2007, 02:19 PM
I would say the only thing that can convince an atheist is an encounter with the living God. So the most effective thing you can do is pray for them, pray that God opens their eyes to the truth, pray that they can encounter God.

Geneva
04-29-2007, 03:42 PM
It's been shown that some primates have opposable thumbs.

See? (http://www.primates.com/faq/index.html#23)


aha good point. I guess I was thinking more like dogs and birds not primates.

Forgot about them. Oops. :P

annnd I just noticed my embarassing typo.

I think I'm going to go fix that...

theelectric3
04-29-2007, 05:56 PM
the similarities show we have the same Creator.

but it in no way means we are equal. Jesus died for humans (God's children made in His likeness and image) not animals.

aliengurl7
04-30-2007, 05:34 PM
but do you see animals become emotionally attached to the ones they mate with? do they get their hearts broken when some other animal screws them over or mates with another animal? i dunno, i just think our pain and love go much deeper than that.

I've had quite a few animals and my cats and dogs would become emotionally attached to one another. My cat Pete would always cuddle with my other cat and they even had kittens together. That's not emotional attachment? I'm sure there has to come heartbreak If they can love each other like that.
Not to mention that there are animals that mate for life such as geese and crows. And animals do mourn the deaths of their loved ones even having funeral like ceremonies for them as dolphins do.

Geneva
04-30-2007, 05:36 PM
My dog Bear is attached to my dog Buster...

The Lamma
04-30-2007, 06:42 PM
BUT cats seem to have short-term memory loss. (at least mine seems to :P) If they had broken hearts or whatever, I don't think it would last like it does in human relationships.

aliengurl7
04-30-2007, 07:17 PM
the similarities show we have the same Creator.

but it in no way means we are equal. Jesus died for humans (God's children made in His likeness and image) not animals.

That's true but through his death He reconciled all things to Him this includes animals. He died for us because were the ones who sinned, not them.

Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

Rom 8:21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

on_a_mission
05-01-2007, 10:00 PM
This is my point exactly about the basic premise. You may start out your arguments by trying to keep it scientific, but within the first couple of exchanges, you are deep into scripture.

TheFireBreathes
05-02-2007, 02:57 PM
I've had quite a few animals and my cats and dogs would become emotionally attached to one another. My cat Pete would always cuddle with my other cat and they even had kittens together. That's not emotional attachment? I'm sure there has to come heartbreak If they can love each other like that.
Not to mention that there are animals that mate for life such as geese and crows. And animals do mourn the deaths of their loved ones even having funeral like ceremonies for them as dolphins do.

ok, my bad. i still disagree but whatever.
gosh do i have to put this in layman's terms? all im wondering is how do i prove to an athiest that we were created for a greater purpose than just reproducing and dying.

skynes
05-03-2007, 03:33 AM
all im wondering is how do i prove to an athiest that we were created for a greater purpose than just reproducing and dying.

You don't. That's not what we were commanded to do. For every reason you can create to prove your point, an atheist can create 10 to counter it.

Love them with Christ's love, show them compassion, show them concern and tell them the Gospel. That's all that is required of us.

You can train yourself to the point where every atheist you meet, you will be able to beat all their arguments, but you won't ever save the person.

TheFireBreathes
05-04-2007, 09:50 AM
it's not like a little debate is a sin...

The Lamma
05-04-2007, 11:27 AM
He didn't say it was a sin...

skynes
05-04-2007, 02:13 PM
it's not like a little debate is a sin...

No I said it's pointless. Debating with an atheist to convince him of things of God, is pointless. Apologetics are not for dealing with atheists, it's for Christians to build themselves up in their faith and help them handle the doubts that come their way.

DarkestRose
05-04-2007, 03:25 PM
If one really wants to focus on reaching the unsaved, atheists or whomever, I think the best route would be to pray for them. Arguing people down probably will not convert many people because in a debate people are defensive of their positions, not in the right mode for accepting Jesus Christ.

The Lamma
05-04-2007, 03:27 PM
When they ask you, go ahead and talk. But remember that Paul says to do it with meekness and respect.

TheFireBreathes
05-05-2007, 12:47 PM
Arguing people down probably will not convert many people because in a debate people are defensive of their positions, not in the right mode for accepting Jesus Christ.

Who said I was arguing people down? You all are making it seem like I'm trying to shove it down their throats or argue with them in anger. Could it be that this athiest is my friend and that it's just a fun debate?

It kind of annoys me when people say "the only thing you can do is pray". I think that in some cases, we should put it all in God's hands. But in other cases, we can use our gifts or are knowledge to help out. Plus, it could please God
So I can just pray. Or I can bring up facts that show we were created for a higher purpose and pray. That way, he's kindof "getting hit from both sides" [not in a bad way of course so don't attack me:P ]

I honestly think that debating athiests and using scientific facts rather than biblical is better. A friend of mine actually converted to Christianity because he was so bewildered by the scientific evidence that points toward God.

The Lamma
05-05-2007, 01:04 PM
I agree that we can do more than pray. In fact that is why we have been giving our spiritual gifts. They are to further God's kingdom. BUT we might not be able to use our gifts in every instance.

skynes
05-05-2007, 01:08 PM
Who said I was arguing people down? You all are making it seem like I'm trying to shove it down their throats or argue with them in anger. Could it be that this athiest is my friend and that it's just a fun debate?


If you had said that in the first place, peoples responses may have been different, I know mine definitely would have. Up till now the only thing to go on was that you wanted logical arguments on humanitess difference to animals to show atheists.



But on topic, why should you not use scripture? Since we know it's a sword (Ephesians 6) and cuts right to the heart (Hebrews 4) is it not silly of us to NOT use it? Why should you allow the atheist all their weapons (atheistic arguments) while you not being allowed yours? (the word of God).

The Lamma
05-05-2007, 01:19 PM
Agh...Double negative. And yeah, I've heard stories of where people used the scripture and the JW left because he was loosing...Lol.

TheFireBreathes
05-05-2007, 08:01 PM
But on topic, why should you not use scripture? Since we know it's a sword (Ephesians 6) and cuts right to the heart (Hebrews 4) is it not silly of us to NOT use it? Why should you allow the atheist all their weapons (atheistic arguments) while you not being allowed yours? (the word of God).


Well since most athiests believe the bible is not the word of god and is just a bunch of rubbish, why not use their own weapon (science "atheistic arguments") against them? :D

skynes
05-06-2007, 03:24 AM
Well since most athiests believe the bible is not the word of god and is just a bunch of rubbish, why not use their own weapon (science "atheistic arguments") against them?

For one it's entirely unbiblical. Secondly our weapon works whether they believe it does or not. Thirdly their atheistic scientists are as biased as hell!

TheFireBreathes
05-06-2007, 03:07 PM
Science? No!

DarkestRose
05-06-2007, 04:14 PM
Again, I feel iffy about the concept of trying to "prove" that Christians are right through science or any other means. It seems to be to be a good way to have the atheist person find information contradicting yours and eventually getting yourself pegged "anti-intellectual" and the atheist concluding that Christians are stupid. Anyway, I've heard of Christians who can "prove" that God is real and atheists would can "prove" that God isn't real. In the end, the focus becomes less a journey to find the truth than a struggle to see who is smarter that whom.

The Lamma
05-07-2007, 11:38 AM
Just don't think that science can't show evidence of God. Science can prove nothing, not even gravity. (I know, weird eh?) But there is scientific evidence for God. In fact, the Bible has past the historical document reliability test thingy with flying colors!!

skynes
05-07-2007, 12:02 PM
In fact, the Bible has past the historical document reliability test thingy with flying colors!!

Yet (annoyingly) many atheists still deny this.

NightCrawler
05-07-2007, 01:19 PM
Just don't think that science can't show evidence of God. Science can prove nothing, not even gravity. (I know, weird eh?)
All science has to do is explain cause and effect accurately and efficiently (while sufficiently avoiding error).

But there is scientific evidence for God.
Like?

In fact, the Bible has past the historical document reliability test thingy with flying colors!!
Which ones? Could you give a source, study, or cite other examples of results?

TheFireBreathes
05-07-2007, 07:30 PM
Like?


Hmm, like the incredible way the earth was finely tuned to fit us. Do I need to explain the extraordinary amount of evidence that points toward a creator?

DarkestRose
05-07-2007, 09:37 PM
Another though I've had it that I don't like when Christians become argumentatiave for the sake of proving we're right. I think if we simply seek to love God and love others, show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, tell people about God and act like we believe we're right (e.g. being congruent with our faith in lifestyle), more people will come to believe than if we just try to prove that we're right by instigating arguments.

Edit: I don't think there is anything wrong with having a discussion with an unsaved person when it comes up, but I dislike Christians arguing for the sake of "we're right and I'm gonna prove it."

NightCrawler
05-08-2007, 08:52 AM
Hmm, like the incredible way the earth was finely tuned to fit us. Do I need to explain the extraordinary amount of evidence that points toward a creator?
a) That sounds egocentric. An atheist might reply like "The nose must have a creator because its purpose was to hold up eyeglasses." They would suggest that we fit the environment, not the environment was fit for us.

b) Honestly, many people (some leaning toward nihilism especially) will highly disagree that there is evidence that NECESSARILY points toward a creator (not just something orderly, but an orderly conscious being).

NightCrawler
05-08-2007, 08:54 AM
Another though I've had it that I don't like when Christians become argumentatiave for the sake of proving we're right. I think if we simply seek to love God and love others, show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, tell people about God and act like we believe we're right (e.g. being congruent with our faith in lifestyle), more people will come to believe than if we just try to prove that we're right by instigating arguments.

Edit: I don't think there is anything wrong with having a discussion with an unsaved person when it comes up, but I dislike Christians arguing for the sake of "we're right and I'm gonna prove it."
To be fair, I think that is a misrepresentation of the debate.

Many people do not know of anything to which we appeal significant difference to animals. Further, they probably think we are wrong... and without support. An argument just tries to show the support. It isn't to tell people they are wrong or rather to show we are right, instead only to show that we have reason to believe what we do. Without reason, we are assumed irrational and delusional. We don't want that or to look like that.

kittygirl
05-08-2007, 12:48 PM
going against instinct.

Choosing to love others, even when they don't love us back is (to me) the biggest proof that we are different and above all other creation.

Animals react pretty much the same all the time, such as abused animals react after being, well, abused. they are fearful, and can only relate certain situations to their surroundings. Whereas humans can see "Oh wait, I'm not going to react that way, irregardless of how I was treated in the past."

The Lamma
05-08-2007, 12:55 PM
Which ones? Could you give a source, study, or cite other examples of results?

Gosh golly, man, I just did this in science. Lucky you. The three tests to determine historical document's reliability is the Internal, External, and Bibliographic tests. I'll give you an extremely simple rundown here... Internal: Does it contradict itself? Nope. Some people will say yes, but if you look at the culture, you'll find that it doesn't. I kinda get the External and Bibliographic tests mixed up... One says it has to match up with other historical documents of the time, which the Bible does, and the other one needs multiple copies without much changes. This is where it passes extremely well. The NT passes that with over 24,000 manuscripts, with only slight mistakes in translation and slips of the pen. Happy?

NightCrawler
05-08-2007, 05:23 PM
Gosh golly, man, I just did this in science. Lucky you. The three tests to determine historical document's reliability is the Internal, External, and Bibliographic tests. I'll give you an extremely simple rundown here... Internal: Does it contradict itself? Nope. Some people will say yes, but if you look at the culture, you'll find that it doesn't. I kinda get the External and Bibliographic tests mixed up... One says it has to match up with other historical documents of the time, which the Bible does, and the other one needs multiple copies without much changes. This is where it passes extremely well. The NT passes that with over 24,000 manuscripts, with only slight mistakes in translation and slips of the pen. Happy?
That was great! ... only no source to back up what you define as "extremely well." I am just calling for an outside authority, so don't take it offensively or nit-picky. :)

TheFireBreathes
05-08-2007, 05:28 PM
a) That sounds egocentric. An atheist might reply like "The nose must have a creator because its purpose was to hold up eyeglasses." They would suggest that we fit the environment, not the environment was fit for us.

b) Honestly, many people (some leaning toward nihilism especially) will highly disagree that there is evidence that NECESSARILY points toward a creator (not just something orderly, but an orderly conscious being).

Ok, scratch creator. A designer

on_a_mission
05-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Well since most athiests believe the bible is not the word of god and is just a bunch of rubbish, why not use their own weapon (science "atheistic arguments") against them? :D

Give it a whirl, but I still think you will be turning back to a biblical arguement in very short order. I have yet to see a non-biblical point made in all these threads that shows we are made for a higher purpose. I would go so far as to contend that it IS the biblical points that make us different - not the scientific.

Also, be prepared to answer in kind when that same athiest starts point-texting and using the Bible itself to argue against your faith.

The Lamma
05-09-2007, 01:50 PM
That was great! ... only no source to back up what you define as "extremely well." I am just calling for an outside authority, so don't take it offensively or nit-picky. :)

It should be pretty easy to find on the net. But Exploring Creation With Science has it hidden somewhere in its pages...

unshakeable15
05-10-2007, 01:52 PM
Stolen from my own blog. :) This probably has holes people will find, but it does present an argument for God without using the Bible.



Aristotle explained that you can tell the purpose of a thing by what it does. Effect defines cause which shows purpose. The purpose is found in the function.

By this method, what then is the purpose of man? What is our singular function? As individuals, we all have individualized functions. Some count numbers, some fight fires, some teach, some write; everyone is individual and unique. But as a whole, as humanity, mankind, we must certainly share a singular function. In that respect, none of us is "a beautiful and unique snowflake" (to quote Fight Club).

Aye, there's the rub. What, then, is the one thing we all share, that we all have in common (barring those who have a "bent" or "broken" nature)? To belong to something larger than ourselves. Why follow and become obsessed over sports teams but to associate ourselves with them and their fans? Why watch movies and plays or read books but to feel connected with others who watch and read as we do, and to feel a connectedness to the characters, to know we are not unusual in our temperament, feelings, actions or any other point of connectivity?

(Of course, we read to better ourselves, to escape, to experience a new, unknown world -- but that last one gets back to the idea of something larger than ourselves. Just as we watch movies to entertain and to escape. But these sensations come later. They are by-products of connectivity. The initial reaction, the reason we first read was to feel a part of something larger, to be able to say "I am not alone in this." Even reading for self-improvement acknowledges this; to improve self you must become more, become better than you are.)

This desire for something bigger than self is what drives us to create communities, it is the force behind friendships, it is the force behind nation-states, it is the force behind all that we do. Even bent, this desire is formidable. This desire is the force behind everyone's yearning for recognition. We want to be recognized, to be acknowledge, to be told we are a part of something, and a significant part at that. Once bent, it becomes a lust for power, for fame, for fortune, for whatever it is that will make us that greater thing, that object of longing. If bent, instead of longing for something greater outside ourselves, we will long to be that something greater.

The Lamma
05-10-2007, 02:18 PM
We were reading a book, and the guy was saying that animals don't try to find greatness, but humans do. Have you ever seen a monkey trying to be great, be socially acceptable, go with the trend? They naturally are that in the monkey world.

TheFireBreathes
05-10-2007, 07:44 PM
I would go so far as to contend that it IS the biblical points that make us different - not the scientific.


Nah, i wouldnt stop at Just the bible.

have you ever noticed how uniquely fine-tuned our world is?

..its atmosphere filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation while working with the oceans to moderate the climate through the storing and redistrubuting of solar energy, and how the Earth is just large enough so that its gravity retains the atmosphere and yet just small enough not to keep too many harmful gases.


One-percent change in the strong nuclear force would have a thirty- to a thousand-fold impact on the production of oxygen and carbon in stars. Since stars provide the carbon and oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw that off balance, conditions in the universe would be much less optimal for existence of life.



..we already know that intelligent minds produce finely tuned devices. Look at the space shuttle. Look at the television set. Look at an internal combustion engine. We see minds producing complex, precision machinery all the time. So God, as the explanation of the universe makes all the sense in the world. It would simply be a natural extrapolation of what we already know that minds can do.

Richard Dawkins of Oxford said that 'the machine code of the genes in uncannily computer-like'. If you reflect on that, you realize that computers run on software programs that are produced by inteligent engineers. Every experience we have about information- weather it's a computer code, hieroglyphic inscription, a book, or a cave painting--points toward intelligence. The same is true about the information inside every cell in every living creature.

You would have to get the right number of the right kind of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule--and that would still be a long way from a living cell...the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.



"Why should o bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me ot deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this...The point is that there is no scientific answer."
-Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse




and a good quote to reply to Mikes aristotle explanation:

"Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidently created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"
-Sir John Templeton

Now of course these are not All the reasons that point toward a Intelligent Designer, but just a few that my hands were willing to type before they cramp up :P.

all these quotes are from a book that I'm currently reading called The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. I like this because all it is a journalist interviewing physisits (sp?), biochemists, biologists, archeaologists, and every other title that ends with ist.

The Lamma
05-10-2007, 08:00 PM
^ and Lee Strobel was trying to prove that God didn't exist when he became a Chrsitian.

on_a_mission
05-11-2007, 07:04 PM
So, if I understand correctly, the fact that the world and life in it is so complex is proof enough that it had to be done by intelligent design.

God is infinitely more complex than us and our world. He is beyound our complete understanding. Therefore, by your logic, God must have been created by an intelligent desing as well.

Sorry, I never bought off on the "just look around you at wonders of the world to justify your belief in god". I have the bible, it is proof enough.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Heh, the 'who made God' argument is always a stumper...Well, to most people it is. :P If God had to have been made, (I'm 'talking' to an evolutionist) who made your bang?

NightCrawler
05-12-2007, 12:33 PM
Heh, the 'who made God' argument is always a stumper...Well, to most people it is. :P If God had to have been made, (I'm 'talking' to an evolutionist) who made your bang?
:: sigh ::

You realize an infinite, always living Being is as much of a logical impossibility as something coming from nothing without a cause.

Christians pick one. Atheists pick the other. Don't ask which one is the completely rational chooser, because neither fit.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 02:22 PM
Like I said, its a stumper. I've heard things to come back against the argument with, but it never stays in my little 'ol brain...

TheFireBreathes
05-12-2007, 03:10 PM
I have the bible, it is proof enough.

Yeah? but what about for non-christians?

on_a_mission
05-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Yeah? but what about for non-christians?

Christians have the bible
Jews have the Tora
Muslims the Koran
Buddists have the "The Noble Eightfold Path"
Atheists have Science
etc....

We all have tools that help us define our place in the universe and help us understand the complexities of the world around us.

TheFireBreathes
05-13-2007, 08:17 PM
well why can't i have science?

The Lamma
05-14-2007, 11:29 AM
The Bible and science work together nicely, if you actually look at it.

TheFireBreathes
05-14-2007, 04:48 PM
The Bible and science work together nicely, if you actually look at it.

exactly.

on_a_mission
05-14-2007, 05:24 PM
The Bible and science work together nicely, if you actually look at it.


The Bible and the Tora go together nicely, if you actually look at them as well. They are not in complete concordance, but then neither is the Bible and Science.

on_a_mission
05-14-2007, 05:28 PM
well why can't i have science?

No one is saying that you can't have science - I was not implying mutal exclusivity - merely stating the primary tools that those who "don't have the bible" use.

The Lamma
05-14-2007, 06:20 PM
The Bible and the Tora go together nicely, if you actually look at them as well. They are not in complete concordance, but then neither is the Bible and Science.

Dude, isn't the Torah the book of the law? In fact, Lee Strobel, before he was Christian, got a Bible for a Jew (this was part of his 'proving God isn't real' thing), the Jew read it, got his mom to send him a Jewish Torah or whatever, and he became a Christian because it was the same!!

unshakeable15
05-15-2007, 07:17 PM
The Jewish Torah is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy, i.e. the Pentateuch.

bob
05-15-2007, 07:20 PM
Otherwise known as The Books of Moses.

The Lamma
05-16-2007, 11:15 AM
The Jewish Torah is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy, i.e. the Pentateuch.

Exactly. :) If anyone thought that I meant the whole Bible was the same in my last post, I didn't. :P

TheFireBreathes
05-27-2007, 01:33 PM
intresting article I found on a part of the brain that only humans and a few others have. It's called the insula cortex if anoyones heard of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/health/psychology/06brain.html?ex=1329800400&en=69d4f58917a38ec6&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg