jesus_is_lord Home Page: Archive: Message #9 Date: Aug 03 1998 00:09:09 EDT From: jesus_is_lord Subject: Evolution & Atheism, Part 2 of 2 **********THE BOOK EXTRACT AND MY COMMENTS********** > "It isn't just zoological classification that is saved from awkward > ambiguity only by the convenient fact that most intermediates are > now extinct. "Most" intermediates are extinct? There is not even ONE alive and there is not even ONE found in the fossil record. Notice how he takes this embarassment of evolution and calls it a "convenient fact". This is intellectual dishonesty, friends. > The same is true of human ethics and law. Our legal > and moral systems are deeply species-bound. The director of a zoo > is legally entitled to 'put down' a chimpanzee that is surplus to > requirements, while any suggestion that he might 'put down' a > redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of > incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. > Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet > the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees in this way > is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible > rationale at all. Okay, let's get down with some serious mumbo-jumbo. This man says that the chimp is your brother. Fleas are your cousins, skunks are your near kinsmen. This is consistent with evolutionary thought--that man is just an animal (incidentally, we ain't no mammal either--that is an animal classification). He effortlessly takes this insanity and applies it to our legal and moral systems. He wants animals to have the exact same rights as humans. This makes sense since he believes we all brothers and sisters. I wonder if he kills houseflies or does he let them land on dung and then land on his food? I wonder if he eats cheeseburgers? Does he eat chicken or fish? What about some good ole bacon and eggs? If he eats ANY animal, then according to his reasoning, he is a cannibal 'cause according to his religion, we are all brothers and sisters. If his kid got a flea on him, would he kill the flea or would he let the flea stay and suck the poor child's blood? Does he have a dog? If so, he doesn't put a collar on him, restricting and degrading him, does he? He let's the dog use the bathroom in the house where ever he wants, of course, since he is entitled to the same rights as people, right? How does he feel about a lion killing a zebra? Does he subscribe to Serenghetti Animal Police? Should tigers and bears be vegetarians? The legal and moral codes that this wicked man seems to so despise come from the Bible. These same codes gave him the opportunity to live in a country where he could grow up in a secure sytem and even gave him the flexibility and opportunity turn his back on those same systems. Yet, now he despises them because a monkey ain't got civil rights? What's next? Health insurance for all wild animals? > Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our > Christian-inspired attitudes, the aborition of a single human > zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted > anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation > than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult > chimpanzees! Lookie here. He made up a new word, "speciesism". Let's see if I can figure out what that is supposed to mean--is it supposed to be the equivalent of racism against animals? By jove, I think I've got it. And look how he works in "Christian-inspired attitudes". What a fool (Nobody needs to write me about the use of this word. There are plenty of scriptures that will call this man the same thing.) Next look how he talks with such disdain for an unborn child--he says an abortion arouses more moral solicitude and righteous indignation THAN the killing of some chimpanzees. That man ain't got all his marbles. He decries that we consider human life above animal life instead of vice-versa. > I have heard decent, liberal scientists, who had no > intention of actually cutting up live chimpanzees, nevertheless > passionately defending their RIGHT to do so if they chose, without > interference from the law. Such people are often the first to > bristle at the smallest infringement of HUMAN rights. After talking about "Christian-inspired attitudes" he goes right into giving the most barbaric example of animal cruelty. If these scientists are so decent, why would they want to dissect a living animal? That ain't decent by no means! The "Christian-inspired attitude" on the other hand, would be to treat the beasts right. The Bible says: Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Only a cruel person would cut up a live animal. This ain't got nothing to do with "Christian-inspired attitudes" cause the Christian response is to treat an animal right not putting it in unnecessary pain and suffering. > The only > reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that > the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead. So he finally admits that THERE ARE NO LIVING INTERMEDIARIES between people and chimps. He still ain't honest, THEY NEVER LIVED! What those tricksters do is draw some realistic lookin' artist CONCEPTIONS in your science book and say this is what they looked like. With 3D animation, they did the same thing on the Discovery channel. > The last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived perhaps as > recently as five million years ago, definitely Notice the word, "perhaps". Such meaningless words are always attached with evolution mumbo-jumbo gumbo. > more recently than > the common ancestor of chimps and orang-utans, and perhaps 30 > million years more recently than the common ancestor of chimps > and monkeys. There it goes again, "perhaps". > Chimpanzees and we share more than 99 per cent of > our genes. If this is true, and I by no means believe anything he says, that 1 percent makes all the difference in the world. > If, in various forgotten islands around the world, > survivors of all intermediates back to the chimp/human common > ancestor were discovered, who can doubt that our laws and our > moral conventions would be profoundly affected, especially as > there would presumably be some interbreeding along the spectrum? Notice the word, "if". This man is operating out there in never-never land. We don't even have one skeleton of a monkey-man. All of their "proof" skeletons that weren't hoaxes are essentially the same as the apes we have today. > Either the whole spectrum would have to be granted full human > rights (Votes for Chimps), or there would have to be an > elaborate apartheid-like system of discriminatory laws, with > courts deciding whether particular individuals were legally > 'chimps' or legally 'humans'; and people would fret about their > daughter's desire to marry one of 'them'. I was right! "Speciesism" is racism for evolutionists! I do hope that they are consistent in their belief system. Have a King Cobra in for a cup of tea. Don't kill that lice that is eating your daughter's head up. Ah, just 1,000 cockroaches in your house, don't you dare call an exterminator! Pests are our kinsmen, our brothers and sisters. They have RIGHTS! Make hospitals for homeless rats! Don't sell anymore mouse traps. Let's get the bubonic plague started again and let the rats carry it everywhere! We animals, we animals! > I suppose the world > is already too well explored for us to hope that this > chastening fantasy will ever come true. Oh, woe is him! He so wants equal rights for animals and a stop to speciesism. You can best believe that he could care less about these trivial arm chair musings--all he is doing is fantasizing while trying to make a couple of bucks on a book that didn't need to be written. He been watching too much "Planet of the Apes"! > But anybody who thinks > that there is something obvious and self-evident about human > 'rights' should reflect that it is just sheer luck that these > embarrassing intermediates happen not to have survived. Luck? Or is it that these intermediates NEVER existed? Mmm? Show me just ONE! Just ONE! There should be millions, but I ask for just one. > Alternatively, maybe if chimpanzees hadn't been discovered until > today they would now be seen as the embarrassing intermediates. ". More fantasizing. Is any of this scientific? Is any of this pertinent to the needs of a man reading it? > - The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, pages 262 - 263 > Penguin Books, 1991 > ISBN: 0-14-014481-1 **********THE CONCLUSION OF MY LETTER TO THE WRITER********** > My apologies if you have already read the book, but it does contain > some amazing statements that sound as if they have come straight > out of the mouth of a fallen angel, or something. No I haven't read the book but this is a good sample to share with other readers. As you've noticed, a spirit is at work here, an evil spirit and I've seen the same sort of spirit in action in real life. I can imagine what that man looks like when he is discussing these things. Thanks again for sharing this piece of mumbo-jumbo with me. I'll get to work writing for the newsletter. For Jesus' sake, Tracy -- http://www.jesus-is-lord.com