Animal behaviour

[tonyrey]

Does that mean a nonhuman animal could only go to heaven via human intercession?

 

[valentino]

To what extent do you reject the Theory?

No, but this is what scientific theories are - they are provisional truths based upon the best available evidence. Evolution has so much correlating evidence from so many varied fields of science, and absolutely zero contradictory evidence, that to disbelieve it as a theory is like disbelieving in gravity. I don’t know what you’ve been told, but if you truly do have an open mind like you claim, then I suspect you’ve simply been told lies, and believed them. It would be nice to know the specific aspects of the Theory that you reject, and why.

Yes - where else?

But from where else? You seem to be willing to reject the Big Bang Theory, supported though it is by plenty of evidence, but happy to embrace the God hypothesis, which has absolutely zero supporting evidence. This makes no sense. It’s irrational.

Such as? I’d be very surprised if you can name a single assumption upon which any scientific Theory is based, that goes against the laws of physics. The whole point of science is that it’s self-correcting. If someone presents a hypothesis that relies on the rejection of one (or more) of the known laws of physics, it’s leapt upon during peer review. It would never make it to the status of “Theory.” So I think you’re just plain wrong here. Again, it makes me think that your sources have been lying to you. Lying is very common in religious circles when it comes to discussion of science, because science proves so much religious dogma to be just plain false. The only way to get around this is for the dogma junkies to lie - both to themselves and to others - about the facts of what science actually tells us.

Correct - and Evolution, for example, has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s settled science.

What’s that got to do with it? Is that your criterion for what separates animal from non-animal? What about the abundance of evidence from embryology, physiology, genetics, fossil records, and so on, that proves that we most certainly are animals? Simply being significantly more intelligent than any other species, doesn’t somehow make us no longer animals. So, to call you on your own rule - “if it’s true then you have to prove it.” So go ahead.

Unless you’re just making an arbitrary semantic distinction, in which case I’d have to ask how it’s relevant within the context of the discussion (ie. pain and suffering).

That’s true - but you did speculate that they might not; and what I said was, there’s zero reason, given the abundance of evidence of shared ancestry between human animals and non-human animals, to even speculate that they feel pain or suffering to a lesser degree than we do.

I won’t be able to express my self real well but In Hawkings explaining his theoryof everything(I read several of his books)He showed how every Molecule had to line up in an exact arrangement and then something happened and it caused everything else to take place.He knew it couldn’t happen because it went against the laws of phsics.So he said "this is where luck happened.he then went on to say that since nothing in this world is perfect one has to just except it.He wouldn’t say a miracle took place(because that’s what it would have been)because he doesn’t believe in miracles because then you would have to believe in God.That’s just one pt.There are others.You can take scientists in all fields working togehter coming up with a theory.But there are always gaps or missing links that can’t be accounted for.They just leave out the gaps and assume that they know what took place.Like a prehistoric man.they say we found this next man closer to us than the prior man.They don’t know what happened in between but they assume they haven’t found him yet.But he’s out there.

 

[Sam_777]

It’s not just the teeth and claws/nails that mark an animal as a carnivore - it’s also the digestive tract, particularly the length of the gut

Simple answer “The Forbidden Fruit”.

I believe the forbidden fruit created a chemical reaction to our body which has changed everything, for example, I believe we had no sex organs because according to the Bible Adam was created BEFORE Eve, and GOD created Eve when he saw that man is not good to be alone, that is why they were not shamed of themselves when they were naked (Genesis 2:25), moreover, if sex was something originally planned then why wouldn’t God allow it in paradise! (Matthew 22:30).

That same example I believe applies on the animals and their physical/digestive body organs.

 

[wanstronian]

I won’t be able to express my self real well but In Hawkings explaining his theoryof everything(I read several of his books)He showed how every Molecule had to line up in an exact arrangement and then something happened and it caused everything else to take place.He knew it couldn’t happen because it went against the laws of phsics.So he said "this is where luck happened.

Well, luck is not contrary to the laws of physics. I think you misunderstood Hawking here - can you give me book title, page, and line?

he then went on to say that since nothing in this world is perfect one has to just except it.He wouldn’t say a miracle took place(because that’s what it would have been)because he doesn’t believe in miracles because then you would have to believe in God.That’s just one pt.There are others.You can take scientists in all fields working togehter coming up with a theory.But there are always gaps or missing links that can’t be accounted for.They just leave out the gaps and assume that they know what took place.

No - it’s clear that despite your earlier claim, you don’t know what a scientific theory is. There are gaps in any theory (but of course, the God hypothesis is nothing BUT gap!!), but scientists don’t just claim to know what happened - they freely admit that they don’t know, then set about trying to find out. “I don’t know” is the root cause of scientific endeavour. That’s why science and faith are ultimately incompatible, because religion takes the opposite approach and just says “I know x,” where x is an arbitrary assertion.

Like a prehistoric man.they say we found this next man closer to us than the prior man.They don’t know what happened in between but they assume they haven’t found him yet.But he’s out there.

Which is an entirely reasonable assumption, given the huge amount of fossil evidence (as well as all the other types of evidence) that points, without exception, towards this exact scenario being true.

Like many creationists, it seems you won’t be happy until scientists have found the bones of every creature that ever lived, and shown how they relate to their parents and their offspring, and also where each specific adaptation took place. It’s a ridiculous demand because it’s entirely unnecessary to show the truth of evolution, but this fact is usually ignored by the creationist.