What's the difference 2?

The second thought was that we (probably just our culture, but possibly others also) are leaning more and more toward eliminating the separation between animals and people. It is a logical conclusion since "science" is proclaiming we are merely an accidental change from some animal (which I challenge any and everyone to find proof of - it won't be found) .

Perhaps that is why we lean more toward therapy than punishment in our justice system. After all, we wouldn't hold a dog accountable for killing a bird. It's nature. However, a dog could be trained not to kill a bird. But that counter-argument dismisses the fact that no person lives strictly in the moment as animals do. We think ahead and we plan actions. We remember and we plan actions. We rationalize and we plan. There are times that we fail to use our human abilities and don't think ahead (which is almost always a bad, bad thing), but that is the point. We can choose to act like animals, but animals cannot choose to act like animals. To us alone did God give the decision to behave or to not behave.

What's the difference?

Frankie, our 3 year old male dog, likes to mark stuff. He's done it for all his 21 dog years. Last week he "took ownership" of something that got us pretty upset. After yelling at him and ushering him out of the house, I said, "Why are you so stupid sometimes?" Then God got me thinking.

It occurred to me that I was actually holding Frankie to a human standard. It also occurred to me that I was calling something that God created "stupid." So here are my thoughts on those two... thoughts, in case anyone is still interested.

First, what is the difference between people and animals? On a spiritual level, animals do not need a savior; people do. Christ did not die so animals could receive eternal life. If that was necessary, he would have come as an animal. No, he took on our form because we are in desperate need of rescuing.

So, what's the difference between people and animals? Obviously, we both have memories. We both have emotions (I know you non-animal owners out there will disagree, but that's because you are a non-animal owner.). We both make decisions. We both care for others of our kind (hopefully). We both have the same basic needs. The differences appear to be a matter of scale.

The abilities of human memory is different (in a greater way) than animals. The same goes with emotions and the way caring is displayed. I believe though, that the greatest difference is in the decision-making ability, in that I think that animals do not have free will. As Pavlov's dog demonstrated, animals make decisions based on the effects of the environment they have been, and presently are, in. While people also make some decisions by that same experience, we also have the ability to make decisions based on future events, the experiences of others, or by applying knowledge and wisdom to situations.

Consequently, it's silly for me to say that a dog is stupid because he acts in a way that God created him to act. I suppose in the reverse, it's silly for me to not say that peopel are stupid when we act like an animal, which is not the way God created us to act.

I'll put the other conclusion up later. It's too much for one post.

Fit This Into the Model

I just found out about this and looked for it on the internet. This discovery was made by an evolution-believing scientist. Models for how where the universe and life came from must be able to include all evidence. If it can't the model should be revised or discarded. Evolution should be discarded, frankly.

The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue ----- by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

A recent discovery in the field of paleontology has sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Evolutionist Mary H. Schweitzer of North Carolina State University has discovered flexible blood vessels inside the fossilized thighbone of a "68-70 million year old" Tyrannosaurus rex1 from the Hell Creek formation in eastern Montana. Further investigation revealed round microscopic structures that look to be cells inside the hollow vessels. Even to the untrained eye, the tissue samples look as if the animal died recently. Fibrous protein material was dissolved with an enzyme called collegenase, indicating that amino acid sequencing could probably be done (amino acids are the building blocks of protein).

Although it is too early to make definite statements regarding this stunning and wholly unexpected find, the evidence seems to indicate the T. rex fossil is -- well, young. Young as in just centuries-old, certainly not an age of millions of years. Indeed, Dr. Schweitzer said, "I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are. I was pretty shocked."2

Would evolutionary theory have predicted such an amazing discovery? Absolutely not, soft tissue would have degraded completely many millions of years ago no matter how fortuitous the preservation process. Will evolutionary theory now state -- due to this clear physical evidence -- that it is possible dinosaurs roamed the earth until relatively recent times? No, for evolutionary theory will not allow dinosaurs to exist beyond a certain philosophical/evolutionary period.
This is not the first time that puzzling soft tissue has been unearthed. Nucleic acid (DNA) taken from wet "fossil" magnolia leaves allegedly 17-20 million years old have been discovered.3 Fragments of genetic material up to 800 base pairs long were recovered -- amazing considering it does not take long for water to degrade DNA. A microbiologist in California dissected a 25-to-40-million-year-old Dominican stingless bee from amber.4 Spores of bacteria were found inside the insect and actually grew when placed in the proper medium. Dr. Cano, the discoverer, took careful measures to avoid contamination. Analysis of the DNA extracted showed it was very much like the DNA found in bacteria growing in bees today. Just as the creation model predicts, bees have always been bees and bacteria have always been bacteria.

If this is in fact what these various scientific evidences indicate -- soft tissue, bacteria, and DNA ensconced in fossils and amber allegedly millions of years old -- then there needs to be a complete re-evaluation of these evolutionary time spans, especially in light of the advances of the ICR RATE project.

Here's the link, with references at the bottom.