The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...but I do believe that Manking IS very special.....physically, emotionally and spiritually......the only creature physically created by God.

It is Evolutionists, in general who believe that Man is 'nothing special'.....for example the following quote from daithifleming, couldn't be any clearer:
"Man is nothing special".

Your problem here is with daithifleming, not with 'evolutionists', since it is NOT the logical follow on of evolutionary theory. Evolution would suggest that we weren't a special creation of God, not that we aren't special.

J C wrote: »

...so there is a fundamental conflict within the 'Evolutionist mind' between what any objective observer would conclude...
......to use your own words "humans are not insects or other animals. We have developed to a more advanced degree (though not in every way, of course). We have higher emotional and intellectual capabilities and can experience empathy, sympathy, love, affection and other higher thought processes moreso than other animals."....and daithi's stated belief (which is equally held by most Evolutionists) that "Man is nothing special".

Again, this is daithi's opinion, perhaps he can explain himself a bit better.

J C wrote: »

.....so we ARE 'something special' then......so a statement that 90% of us should be wiped out WOULD be quite outrageous then?????

YES! Did I ever say anything different?

J C wrote: »

ALL of the resraints on such an outcome which undoubtedly restrain Evolutionists would equally apply to Creationists PLUS their belief that God created Man as a special being and commands that innocent life should never be taken......so when it comes to the possibility of mass culling, the Creationist has a 'belt and braces' preventing him going down that route......while the Materialitic Evolutionist only possesses a 'pair of braces'!!!:D

If your valuing of human life can be increased by the arbitrary instruction from a dusty book "belt," it means you're "braces" are not working as well as they should be! .

J C wrote: »

....of course individuals, of all beliefs and none have killed innocent Humans.....and society has dealt swiftly with such lawbreaking.........but IF society itself moves to a position that Humans are 'nothing special' ......and especially if it legally allows the taking of ANY innocent Human life.....then a very important barrier on the taking of innocent Human life will have been breached.......and EVERYONE will be more likely to die from 'un-natural causes' as a result.

Once again, evolutionary theory would suggest that we weren't a special creation of God, not that we aren't special.

Ekancone

Apart from human culture, i don't really see the big difference between us and animals. And in the wider context of the universe, we mean very little indeed. That doesn't mean we should exterminate humans as if they were pests as JC suggested. I was just challenging the Christian viewpoint that man is somehow special in the universe. But thats just my opinion.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Apart from human culture, i don't really see the big difference between us and animals. And in the wider context of the universe, we mean very little indeed. That doesn't mean we should exterminate humans as if they were pests as JC suggested. I was just challenging the Christian viewpoint that man is somehow special in the universe. But thats just my opinion.

I would think that yours is the viewpoint of most Evolutionists.....indeed it was my viewpoint before I became a Creationist!!!:)

sdep

It is, in that useful phrase, a category mistake to confuse science with morality. You can't expect a moral code to pop out from a scientific theory. Scientists are not and do not seek to be sole arbiters of morality; moral questions are for the whole of society, and scientists have no more stake than anyone else. They do, though, have a special role in seeking out knowledge that helps society make informed and, I would say, consequently better moral choices.

On the point at issue here, science tells us that we share common ancestry with other species. Does this devalue human life? Humanists - secular and otherwise - say not. Religious or no, we can choose to give ourselves human rights and to affirm the worth of human existence.

pH

daithifleming wrote: »

That doesn't mean we should exterminate humans as if they were pests as JC suggested.

I'm beginning to see the value of religion, as there seems to be those that quite openly admit it's all that's stopping them murdering the rest of us. Now if only it wasn't for those other believers who openly admit that it's religion that's causing them to murder the rest of us

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

I would think that is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Evolutionists.....indeed it was my viewpoint before I became a Creationist!!!:)

Again, this is speculation on your part.

Ekancone

pH wrote: »

I'm beginning to see the value of religion, as there seems to be those that quite openly admit it's all that's stopping them murdering the rest of us. Now if only it wasn't for those other believers who openly admit that it's religion that's causing them to murder the rest of us

Religion doesn't stop us from killing each other no more so than religion makes us to kill each other. If religion ceased to exist, i very much doubt people would be murdering each other en masse in the street.

J C

pH wrote: »

I'm beginning to see the value of religion, as there seems to be those that quite openly admit it's all that's stopping them murdering the rest of us. Now if only it wasn't for those other believers who openly admit that it's religion that's causing them to murder the rest of us

You are correct that belief can be a very powerful force .....for good or ill.

.....and a belief that the Man is just another animal .....could lead to the believer acting accordingly!!!!

....the Christian Faith demands that we present the Good News of salvation with LOVE for our fellow Man.....so LOVE should be the logical result of such a belief!!!:D:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.....and a belief that the Man is just another animal .....could lead to the believer acting accordingly!!!!

There is a difference between your belief in God and my belief that Man is nothing special in the wider context of the universe. Someone with a convincing argument could sway me in my 'belief' because i don't feel any special connection to it. The shame about religious belief is that reason and logic don't apply and therefore debate on the subject is futile.

J C

Originally Posted by daithifleming
Apart from human culture, i don't really see the big difference between us and animals. And in the wider context of the universe, we mean very little indeed. That doesn't mean we should exterminate humans as if they were pests as JC suggested. I was just challenging the Christian viewpoint that man is somehow special in the universe. But thats just my opinion.

Originally Posted by J C
I would think that is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Evolutionists.....indeed it was my viewpoint before I became a Creationist!!!

daithifleming wrote: »

Again, this is speculation on your part.

The fact that it was my viewpoint..... before I became a Creationist ISN'T speculation on my part.

...and a belief by Materialitic Evolutionists that Humans are 'nothing special' would be logically consistent with their belief that Humans arose by the same 'naturalistic' means as the rest of life....and IF this is true....as Evolutionists maintain......then Humans ARE just 'hairless Apes' with a big brain and an even bigger sex drive!!!:eek:

So do you think that you share your viewpoint (that we are 'nothing special')with the majority of your fellow Evolutionists (as I have suggested).....or are you in a minority of one????

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Keep it in the subjunctive!

It WAS in the subjective.........

There are times when I am particularly fond of you, JC, and this is one of them.

J C wrote: »

My point was that 2Scoops 'hypothetical scientist' was obviously Human ...but this DIDN'T stop him (hypothetically) valuing Human life LOWER than other life-forms when he (hypothetically) advocated the mass murder of 90% of Humanity......and I gave a cogent reason why that might (hypothetically) be the case.....
.........without any substantial rebuttal from anybody on the thread!!!

.....could I also point out that it was yourself and 2Scoops (and NOT me) who introduced this 'hypothetical Evolutionist Scientist'....in the first place......
.....so you asked a hypothetical question.....and I answered it hypothetically.......

........did you ACTUALLY want an answer ....or was your question rhetorical as well as hypothetical???!!!:D:)

Well, I was clarifying (for you) 2Scoops' question, but that's fair enough. I suspect, however, that we will find ourselves back at square one quite quickly!

In answer to the question of whether, say, I might advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, I don't think it's impossible for someone to consider it and also have a rational/scientific perspective. However, to seriously advocate it, particularly in public, requires a degree of mental aberration that makes it seriously unlikely that one could be described as rational in the normal sense.

Having said that, psychopaths (and genuinely advocating the elimination of 90% of humanity requires, I would say, a psychopathic lack of affect) are usually rational in certain senses. What they are not, usually, are scientists, or of a scientific turn of mind, because psychopaths generally lack patience with the necessary discipline.

The problem here is that you are equating the scientific perspective - that humanity is a species of animal - with a moral perspective - that humanity is therefore no different from, and in every way equal to, other species of animal. Presumably, you equate these because you assume that, as a scientist, I use science as the basis of my morality - or perhaps that, as an atheist, I can have no basis for morality at all. However, this begs the question, because you are assuming what you set out to prove.

If I say, "well, I'm an atheist, and a scientist, and I know from a scientific perspective that mankind is one amongst many other species - but I don't base my morality on that perspective", I think you would be entitled to inquire why I did not. What you would not be entitled to do is to claim that I actually did base my morality on that perspective.

Are you asking me why I don't? Or are you claiming that I do? Or are you perhaps claiming that you have to hand an example of a scientist who does, and are asking me to explain that?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

There is a difference between your belief in God and my belief that Man is nothing special in the wider context of the universe. Someone with a convincing argument could sway me in my 'belief' because i don't feel any special connection to it. The shame about religious belief is that reason and logic don't apply and therefore debate on the subject is futile.

Reason and logic CAN be applied to test ALL beliefs......and the debate on this thread, about Evolutionist and Creationist beliefs ......has been anything but futile!!!:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by daithifleming
Apart from human culture, i don't really see the big difference between us and animals. And in the wider context of the universe, we mean very little indeed. That doesn't mean we should exterminate humans as if they were pests as JC suggested. I was just challenging the Christian viewpoint that man is somehow special in the universe. But thats just my opinion.

Originally Posted by J C
I would think that is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Evolutionists.....indeed it was my viewpoint before I became a Creationist!!!

The fact that it was my viewpoint..... before I became a Creationist ISN'T speculation on my part.

...and a belief by Materialitic Evolutionists that Humans are 'nothing special' would be logically consistent with their belief that Humans arose by the same 'naturalistic' means as the rest of life....and IF this is true....as Evolutionists maintain......then Humans ARE just 'hairless Apes' with a big brain and an even bigger sex drive!!!:eek:

So do you think that you share your viewpoint (that we are 'nothing special')with the majority of your fellow Evolutionists (as I have suggested).....or are you in a minority of one????

Well as i said, whether the majority of 'evolutionists' (whatever that is) believe that humans and animals are no different is a matter of speculation on your part. I happen to think that humans are nothing special, especially in the wider context of the universe. In fact, we mean absolutely nothing in that context. But i don't see how that leads to an excuse for wiping each other out. Isn't there a benefit - even from a myopic point of view - in getting on with your community and not pointlessly slaughtering each other, irrespective of personal belief?

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are times when I am particularly fond of you, JC, and this is one of them.

....and I love you too....in a purely Christian way...I hasten to add!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

In answer to the question of whether, say, I might advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, I don't think it's impossible for someone to consider it and also have a rational/scientific perspective. However, to seriously advocate it, particularly in public, requires a degree of mental aberration that makes it seriously unlikely that one could be described as rational in the normal sense.

SOMEBODY ....and somebody quite powerful, has proposed that the World population SHOULD be less than 500 million.....which is over 90% less than it is today .......although they don't tell us about HOW this is to be achieved......and NOBODY seems to have bothered to find out WHO they are .....or indeed HOW they are proposing to achieve this feat!!:eek:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having said that, psychopaths (and genuinely advocating the elimination of 90% of humanity requires, I would say, a psychopathic lack of affect) are usually rational in certain senses. What they are not, usually, are scientists, or of a scientific turn of mind, because psychopaths generally lack patience with the necessary discipline.

The problem here is that you are equating the scientific perspective - that humanity is a species of animal - with a moral perspective - that humanity is therefore no different from, and in every way equal to, other species of animal. Presumably, you equate these because you assume that, as a scientist, I use science as the basis of my morality - or perhaps that, as an atheist, I can have no basis for morality at all. However, this begs the question, because you are assuming what you set out to prove.

If I say, "well, I'm an atheist, and a scientist, and I know from a scientific perspective that mankind is one amongst many other species - but I don't base my morality on that perspective", I think you would be entitled to inquire why I did not. What you would not be entitled to do is to claim that I actually did base my morality on that perspective.

Are you asking me why I don't? Or are you claiming that I do?

.....yes, I'm asking WHY you WOULDN'T base your morality on your beliefs???!!:)

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Well as i said, whether the majority of 'evolutionists' (whatever that is) believe that humans and animals are no different is a matter of speculation on your part. I happen to think that humans are nothing special, especially in the wider context of the universe. In fact, we mean absolutely nothing in that context.

So do you think that you share your viewpoint (that we are 'nothing special')with the majority of your fellow Evolutionists (as I have suggested).....or are you in a minority of one????:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

SOMEBODY ....and somebody quite powerful, has proposed that the World population SHOULD be less than 500 million.....which is over 90% less than it is today .......although they don't tell us about HOW this is to be achieved......and NOBODY seems to have bothered to find out WHO they are .....or indeed HOW they are proposing to achieve this feat!!:eek:

Er, yes - but anonymously erecting huge granite slabs is not always indicative of a sound mind, and being able to afford to do so is definitely not indicative of being a scientist!

J C wrote: »

.....yes, I'm asking WHY you DON'T base your morality on your beliefs???!!:)

Sound man! Well sidestepped.

At a rational level, I do base my moral beliefs on a universally egalitarian perspective. It is difficult to implement every day, and there would be plenty of ways in which I fall short of my own ideals, but you'll have that, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

So do you think that you share your viewpoint (that we are 'nothing special')with the majority of your fellow Evolutionists (as I have suggested).....or are you in a minority of one????:)

I don't really understand what an evolutionist is to be honest. I happen to think that evolutionary theory is a rather elegant explantion for the diversity of life on this planet, and one which has some interesting application in my field of study, economics. But i wouldn't say that im an evolutionist, thats just labelling oneself with their 'beliefs'. But anyway, im sure there are many people both 'evolutionist' and 'non-evolutionist' who believe that humans are nothing special on this world. So no, im not in a minority of one.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes - but anonymously erecting huge granite slabs is not always indicative of a sound mind, and being able to afford to do so is definitely not indicative of being a scientist!

..and just like our supposedly 'ever-watchful and investigative' media......that keeps us fully briefed on the potholes in the roads around 'Ballygobackwards'.....or the 5:40 horse race from Outer Mongolia.........DO you ALSO have NO interest in WHO these clearly powerful people ARE.....or HOW they plan to achieve a 90% reduction in Humanity???

Scofflaw wrote: »

At a rational level, I do base my moral beliefs on a universally egalitarian perspective. It is difficult to implement every day, and there would be plenty of ways in which I fall short of my own ideals, but you'll have that, as they say.

It all sounds lovely.....

......but does your 'egalitarian perspective' include equality between Humans and other organisms......and IF it does......do you also believe that 90% of Humanity is 'surplus to requirements'.....like the 'authors' of the 'Guidestones' apparently do???!!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

..and just like our supposedly 'ever-watchful and investigative' media......that keeps us fully briefed on the potholes in the roads around 'Ballygobackwards'.....or the 5:40 horse race from Outer Mongolia.........DO you ALSO have no interest in WHO these clearly powerful people ARE.....or HOW they plan to achieve a 90% reduction in Humanity???

There's a Conspiracy Theories forum for this type of thing.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't really understand what an evolutionist is to be honest.

....I don't really understand WHY an evolutionist is to be honest !!!:D

daithifleming wrote: »

I happen to think that evolutionary theory is a rather elegant explantion for the diversity of life on this planet, and one which has some interesting application in my field of study, economics. But i wouldn't say that im an evolutionist, thats just labelling oneself with their 'beliefs'.

I see ......you believe in the validity of Evolution ......but you are NOT an Evolutionist.....

.....neat trick!!!:eek:

......so people who believe in Communism are not Communists.......and people who believe in God are not Theists......

........at one fell swoop YOU have succeeded in single-handedly invalidating practically every collective noun in the dictionary......

.....I wonder would you qualify for the Nobel Prize in Literature for this amazing feat!!!!:eek::D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

I see ......you believe in the validity of Evolution ......but you are NOT an Evolutionist.....

.....neat trick!!!:eek:

......so people who believe in Communism are not Communists.......and people who believe in God are not Theists......

........at one fell swoop YOU have succeeded in single-handedly invalidating practically every collective noun in the dictionary......

.....I wonder would you qualify for the Nobel Prize in Literature for this amazing feat!!!!:eek::D

Well, i don't believe in evolution. I don't pray to evolution nor do i express my personality based on what it describes. I just think it is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life, its not a belief system to me. For example, i am open to other explanations for this diversity as long as they provide convincing arguments and evidence. Could you say the same about your belief in God? I don't think so.

For the record, i happen to think it is arrogant to believe that humans are special in the context of the universe. We are not. But that has nothing to do with my opinion as to what consitutes a good explantion as to the diversity of life on this planet. Understand?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, i don't believe in evolution. I don't pray to evolution nor do i express my personality based on what it describes. I just think it is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life, its not a belief system to me. For example, i am open to other explanations for this diversity as long as they provide convincing arguments and evidence.

.........I see.....you're so open minded that you could become the first Creationist Evolutionist!!!!:eek::D

daithifleming wrote: »

Could you say the same about your belief in God? I don't think so.

I think that IF I found that there was NO evidence for His existence I might be persuaded that He didn't exist!!!:D

daithifleming wrote: »

For the record, i happen to think it is arrogant to believe that humans are special in the context of the universe. We are not. But that has nothing to do with my opinion as to what consitutes a good explantion as to the diversity of life on this planet. Understand?

It is logically consistent for a person who thinks that Evolution "is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life".......to also believe that Humans are 'nothing special'........so you ARE consistent in your beliefs!!:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.........I see.....you're so open minded that you could become the first Creationist Evolutionist!!!!:eek::D


I think that IF I found that there was NO evidence for His existence I might be persuaded that He didn't exist!!!:D



It is logically consistent for a person who thinks that Evolution "is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life".......to also believe that Humans are 'nothing special'........so you ARE consistent in your beliefs!!:D

Well, not really, there are many evolutionary biologists who would disagree with me. They would cite the development of human culture as something that differentiates us from animals. In fact your friend Richard Dawkins would be one of these people. (Ref: The Selfish Gene, Chpt 11) But i wouldn't agree with that argument. So im afraid you are wrong, old boy.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
It is logically consistent for a person who thinks that Evolution "is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life".......to also believe that Humans are 'nothing special'........so you ARE consistent in your beliefs!!

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, not really, there are many evolutionary biologists who would disagree with me. They would cite the development of human culture as something that differentiates us from animals. In fact your friend Richard Dawkins would be one of these people. (Ref: The Selfish Gene, Chpt 11) But i wouldn't agree with that argument.

......is this the same Richard Dawkins who made the following comment about ALL living organisms????......
"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots?" he asked. "We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot *child."

.....sounds like he shares your view that 'Humans are just another animal'.....and a 'robotic animal' at that!!!!:D:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

..and just like our supposedly 'ever-watchful and investigative' media......that keeps us fully briefed on the potholes in the roads around 'Ballygobackwards'.....or the 5:40 horse race from Outer Mongolia.........DO you ALSO have NO interest in WHO these clearly powerful people ARE.....or HOW they plan to achieve a 90% reduction in Humanity???

No, because, again, I have no reason to believe that the ability to inscribe stones tablets is indicative of power, per se. You would of course have to differ.

Also, reading what the message is, I see no mention of eradicating 90% of humanity there either.

J C wrote: »

It all sounds lovely.....

......but does your 'egalitarian perspective' include equality between Humans and other organisms......and IF it does......do you also believe that 90% of Humanity is 'surplus to requirements'.....like the 'authors' of the 'Guidestones' do???!!!!

Well, no, because that's an entirely separate question, and because again you have put your words in someone else's mouth. Would I agree that 500,000,000 people represents an environmentally desirable population level? Quite possibly. Would I advocate achieving such a population through eradicating 90% of humanity? No. Would I advocate achieving such a population level through voluntary birth control? Absolutely. Without hesitation. I hereby advocate exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
It is logically consistent for a person who thinks that Evolution "is a clever way of explaining the diversity of life".......to also believe that Humans are 'nothing special'........so you ARE consistent in your beliefs!!



......is this the same Richard Dawkins who made the following 'bleak' comment about ALL living organisms????......
"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots?" he asked. "We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot *child."

.....sounds like he shares your view that 'Humans are just another animal'.....and a 'robotic animal' at that!!!!:D:)

1) That doesn't sound like he is saying we are just another animal at all. Are you that obtuse?

2) Dawkins is quite fond of using metaphors when he writes, therefore one should read the entire argument instead of quote-picking.

3) Here is the direct quote from the Selfish Gene, just to put a final nail in the coffin of your pathetic argument.

'So far, I have not talked much about man in particular, though i have not deliberately excluded him either. Part of the reason i have used the term 'survival machine' is that animal would have left out plants, and in some peoples minds, humans. The argument that i have put forward should, prima facie, apply to any evolved being. If a species is to be excepted, it must be for good particular reasons. Are there any good reasons for supposing our own species to be unique? I believe the answer is yes. (Dawkins, p189, 1976)

Once again JC, you have been pwned. It must be getting tiresome at this stage.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, reading what the message is, I see no mention of eradicating 90% of humanity there either.

.....and I didn't claim that the 'guidestones' authors wanted to eradicate 90% of humanity .....I said that they planned a reduction of 90% in Humanity.

The first guideline states "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.......without saying HOW this is to be achieved.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would I agree that 500,000,000 people represents an environmentally desirable population level? Quite possibly. Would I advocate achieving such a population through eradicating 90% of humanity? No. Would I advocate achieving such a population level through voluntary birth control? Absolutely. Without hesitation. I hereby advocate exactly that.

Sounds lovely and 'egalitarian' allright....

.....but how long do you think that it would take to reduce the population of the World by over 90% using "voluntary birth control"?

The best the Chinese 'one child' policy has been able to achieve is a slowing down in population INCREASE.....so come on, Scofflaw.....do you really think that "voluntary birth control".....will result in nine couples out of ten "volunteering" to have NO children....which is what it would take to reduce the population by 90%......and even then it would take 80 years for the full reduction to occur.

ARE you not interested in even finding out HOW the 'Guidestone people' propose to do it........or do you prefer to leave the choice of method to them????

ARE you not even curious WHO these people ARE.......which might give you some idea of HOW they plan to achieve this feat???

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

.....and I didn't claim that the 'guidestones' authors wanted to eradicate 90% of humanity .....I said that they planned a reduction of 90% in Humanity.

The first guideline states "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.......without saying HOW this is to be achieved.

I'll call this Claim A - that you're not claiming that the authors of these tablets want to eradicate 90% of humanity.

J C wrote: »

Sounds lovely and 'egalitarian' allright....

.....but how long do you think that it would take to reduce the population of the World by over 90% using "voluntary birth control"?

The best the Chinese 'one child' policy has been able to achieve is a slowing down in population INCREASE.....so come on, Scofflaw.....do you really think that "voluntary birth control".....will result in nine couples out of ten "volunteering" to have NO children....which is what it would take to reduce the population by 90%......and even then it would take 80 years for the full reduction to occur.

ARE you not interested in even finding out HOW the 'Guidestone people' propose to do it........or do you prefer to leave the choice of method to them????

ARE you not even curious WHO these people ARE.......which might give you some idea of HOW they plan to achieve this feat???

Essentially, this is Claim B - that the authors must be planning some kind of eradication.

Claim A and Claim B are contradictory. You claim you're not claiming they aim to eradicate 90% of humanity, and you also make it clear that you believe exactly that.

not sure why I'm bothering here,
Scofflaw

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

1) That doesn't sound like he is saying we are just another animal at all. Are you that obtuse?

2) Dawkins is quite fond of using metaphors when he writes, therefore one should read the entire argument instead of quote-picking.

3) Here is the direct quote from the Selfish Gene, just to put a final nail in the coffin of your pathetic argument.

'So far, I have not talked much about man in particular, though i have not deliberately excluded him either. Part of the reason i have used the term 'survival machine' is that animal would have left out plants, and in some peoples minds, humans. The argument that i have put forward should, prima facie, apply to any evolved being. If a species is to be excepted, it must be for good particular reasons. Are there any good reasons for supposing our own species to be unique? I believe the answer is yes. (Dawkins, p189, 1976)

Fair enough, he says that Man is unique.......but that doesn't mean that Dawkins believes Man to be anything more than 'just another product of Evolution'!!!

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'll call this Claim A - that you're not claiming that the authors of these tablets want to eradicate 90% of humanity.

Essentially, this is Claim B - that the authors must be planning some kind of eradication.

Claim A and Claim B are contradictory. You claim you're not claiming they aim to eradicate 90% of humanity, and you also make it clear that you believe exactly that.

I don't know WHAT they plan to do......they may do nothing at all.....or they may not know what to do.....or they may achieve a 'soft landing' to 10% of current population by some method other than 'voluntary birth control'!!!

Claims A and B .....as you call them are two distinct POSSIBILITIES......are you not interested in which POSSIBILITY is planned to be pursued......or whether they have abandoned the idea in 'Guideline 1' completely????

.......or do you not care either way????

......and WHY do you think the 'fearlessly investigative' media .......who inform us of what colour knickers are worn by various celebreties .......with colour photos as PROOF.......have shown a distinct lack of interest......in these weighty stones........and their equally weighty 'guidelines'????

......maybe they are a bunch of Creationists.....and IF they are..... are you still happy to let them determine how to get back to 500 million people on Earth??