The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Danmac]

Originally Posted by Danmac
If human are animals then maybe we should prosecute anyone who kills an animal. ?

Humans are omnivores by nature. We evolved to eat meat. As long as the animal is killed humanely and for the purpose of consumption, I see no problem in this.

Suppose someone runs over a possum for sport. Should they be prosecuted?

Originally Posted by Danmac

Or maybe we should adopt the law of the animal kingdom. Every animal for himself. Do you think we should kill off humans in overpopulated areas and package the meat for market? Why not?

​

​

Because we don't need to. There's more than enough resources to go round.

Well there isn't enough resources in some places. Should we harvest humans for human consumption in those destitute countries around the world?

Originally Posted by Danmac
If I thought I was an animal I suppose I should act like one. Why is it that we want to throw those humans in jail who do act like animals

Animals do not act out of hate, revenge or religious motivation. They act for survival. We do not prosecute others who kill in self defense. We do not prosecute those who steal to live.

What about hyenas that steal the carcass from another animal? Should they be arrested by the local conservation officer and incarcerated for a specified amount of time? That's theft isn't it? Go to your local Walmart and steal some food. When they arrest you just tell them your hungry and they will let you go.

 

[Commoner]

Suppose someone runs over a possum for sport. Should they be prosecuted?

Yes, and we do prosecute people who mistreat animals. Where are you from?

 

[Commoner]

What about hyenas that steal the carcass from another animal? Should they be arrested by the local conservation officer and incarcerated for a specified amount of time? That's theft isn't it? Go to your local Walmart and steal some food. When they arrest you just tell them your hungry and they will let you go.

Shouldn't we arrest children who steal other children's toys? Lame.

 

[McBell]

Shouldn't we arrest children who steal other children's toys? Lame.

It is his way to keep the focus of the thread off his ignorance of evolution.

 

[Commoner]

It is his way to keep the focus of the thread off his ignorance of evolution.

And he's succeeding. His ignorance of evolution is dwarfed by his lack of understanding of the world around him.

 

[Danmac]

Yes, and we do prosecute people who mistreat animals. Where are you from?

Would you call killing a black bear for the mount a sport? There are many animals that are killed in the name of sport that are not used for human consumption. Should we allow humans to be killed for sport if we promise to harvest the meat?

 

[Commoner]

Would you call killing a black bear for the mount a sport? There are many animals that are killed in the name of sport that are not used for human consumption. Should we allow humans to be killed for sport if we promise to harvest the meat?

Bears are not humans. Neither are cats bears. Neither are ants dogs. Bears and humans and cats and dogs and ants, all animals, yet not the same.

Should we not allow squishing cats and dogs with bulldozers, when we say nothing when an ant gets squished under our feet? Really, are these rhetorical questions, or are you actually wondering about these things?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Would you call killing a black bear for the mount a sport? There are many animals that are killed in the name of sport that are not used for human consumption. Should we allow humans to be killed for sport if we promise to harvest the meat?

No, but neither should we allow animals to be killed for sport.

Also, I note in an earlier post that you seem to lack understanding of the terms 'humane' and 'consumption'. If you run over a possum for sport, you are not killing it humanely or for consumption. I assume you know what a dictionary is?

 

[Danmac]

Bears are not humans. Neither are cats bears. Neither are ants dogs. Bears and humans and cats and dogs and ants, all animals, yet not the same.

Should we not allow squishing cats and dogs with bulldozers, when we say nothing when an ant gets squished under our feet? Really, are these rhetorical questions, or are you actually wondering about these things?

No I am asking a question that you have yet to answer. Rambling is not answering.

 

[Commoner]

Fine...

Would you call killing a black bear for the mount a sport?

No, but there are many who do.

There are many animals that are killed in the name of sport that are not used for human consumption. Should we allow humans to be killed for sport if we promise to harvest the meat?

Just because both chickens and humans are animals, that does not make us the same, or equal, or subject to the same rights. Again, should we not then be able to squish dogs to death with bulldozers, since we have no problem when doing the same with a bug? Bugs and dogs are both animals, right? Or did I miss something?

Welcome to Earth, Danmac!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

No I am asking a question that you have yet to answer. Rambling is not answering.

Oh - NOW you grasp that fact.

 

[Danmac]

No, but neither should we allow animals to be killed for sport.

Also, I note in an earlier post that you seem to lack understanding of the terms 'humane' and 'consumption'. If you run over a possum for sport, you are not killing it humanely or for consumption. I assume you know what a dictionary is?

There are some places that practice cannibalism. Do you agree with that practice?

 

[Autodidact]

A biologist that believes in evolution and a creator. To me that is confusing.

Possibly the tenth time I've explained this simple concept to you. Evolution works with, or without, a creator. Most Christians do accept evolution, because they accept science. It's only a minority of anti-science fundamentalists who reject it.

 

[Autodidact]

Danmac actually has a life apart from these forums. Just because I am not available to respond as much as you are doesn't mean I don't have anything to say. Now, having said that. You are not a scientist or a biologist. You may be a bit self educated on the matter, but you really don't know anything, but the basics. You echo what scientists say as though you know something about it when in reality you are just spouting off, as you usually do.

O.K. Now if you're done with your ad hominems, did you have anything to say about evolution?

 

[Danmac]

Possibly the tenth time I've explained this simple concept to you. Evolution works with, or without, a creator. Most Christians do accept evolution, because they accept science. It's only a minority of anti-science fundamentalists who reject it.

Many Christians are guilty of not educating themselves. And you are wrong. Most Christians do not accept macroevolution.

 

[Autodidact]

I cannot completely disagree with that. The Bible itself says that man was formed from the dust. I'm sure there is a more scientific term than dust, but that is the term the Bible uses. I don't think it is a coincidence that human kind is dependent upon things that come from the ground for sustenance. I do however take issue with the one common ancestor for all living creatures.

Danmac: For the purpose of this thread, we all agree that God created all things, including all creatures on earth. The only question is, HOW? That's where science comes in. Science tells us HOW, not WHO. Christians who accept science believe tha the evolution is HOW God created all things. Anti-science fundamentalist YECs believe God created all things via magic poofing, plus accelerated evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

I cannot completely disagree with that. The Bible itself says that man was formed from the dust. I'm sure there is a more scientific term than dust, but that is the term the Bible uses. I don't think it is a coincidence that human kind is dependent upon things that come from the ground for sustenance. I do however take issue with the one common ancestor for all living creatures.

Yes, you've told us that at least 5 times in this thread alone. What you haven't told us, which is what this thread is about, is what evidence you have for that assertion. Because we're really not interested in your peculiar beliefs.

 

[Autodidact]

I suppose if we agree with macroevolution, then we also must agree that humans are nothing more than animals separated by time. But if we agree that humans were created as a higher form of life than all other living creatures, then we must acknowledge a God. But then the atheist would have to take issue with his or her own lack. Herein lies the problem. There is only room for one God in the life of an atheist and that would be self.

EVOLUTION, Danmac, this thread is about evolution. You seem fascinated by atheism, so why don't you start a thread to discuss it? This one is about two things: (1) evolution (2) evidence. Do you have anything at all to say about the relationship between those two things?

Of course humans are animals, Danmac, what do you think we are, plants?

 

[Autodidact]

Love that is generated by affection is not love but selfish. Agape love that is self sacrificing is of God.

START A THREAD.

(*thinks Danmac has some strange ideas indeed. Love without affection?*)

 

[Danmac]

Danmac: For the purpose of this thread, we all agree that God created all things, including all creatures on earth. The only question is, HOW? That's where science comes in. Science tells us HOW, not WHO. Christians who accept science believe tha the evolution is HOW God created all things. Anti-science fundamentalist YECs believe God created all things via magic poofing, plus accelerated evolution.

You are reducing humans to mere animals when you agree with the one common ancestor theory. God created humans as the highest from of life. The "only" species that possesses morality.