Evolving to the Level of Dog Tacos

Replying to THIS ARTICLE my new friend Amanda had this to say: 

It definitely requires some sort of serious religious or spiritual fanaticism to reject even the possibility of evolution.

And yes, this was the entirety of her comment. It does boggle the mind. I replied:

Greetings Amanda!
Actually, rejecting evolution only requires a clear understanding of what Darwin proposed and an understanding of the mechanisms which are put forth as mechanisms of evolution. (For a complete look at this, get my free e-book, Thursday Night Nachos HERE!) In short, if you can understand that you cannot add by subtracting, then you understand enough to reject Darwinism. It requires no religious beliefs at all- merely an understanding of Darwinism and basic logic.

But you probably gained your understanding of evolution from the title of your 5th grade science textbook. Don’t feel too bad. People all the time be making absurd comments like yours about subjects they don’t understand in the comments section of LOTS of places on the internet. May I suggest that you spend more time asking questions instead of vomiting up a bumpersticker’s worth of anti-Christian hatespeach and bigotry next time? I think you will find that you learn more that way.
Thanks for stopping by!

She returned to offer a reasoned defense of her position.

HA HA! I am kidding of course. She said this:

Are you suggesting that we in no way have evolved over millions of years ?

Once again- this was her ENTIRE COMMENT. I know I am a little verbose and love the sound of my own voice- but how can she be satisfied with this? Did she really type that and say to herself, “Yup. I think I’ve made my point sufficiently.”?

So I said;

Yes, I am suggesting that we have not evolved, and also that there have not been millions of years. And while the reasons are too numerous to go into here, I will summarize and say, there are NO arguments or pieces of evidence to support the deep time/evolutionary dogmas. Human evolution is a lie with not a scrap of evidence behind it, as is all Darwinian evolution- Only a team of politicians, lawyers, and television personalities who know very little about the relevant sciences. Science does not support evolution, no matter how badly atheism wishes it would.
To learn more, check out this resource I created where in people smarter than me break down all of the relevant issues in detail. I think you will find it eye opening and enlightening.

This time she was motivated to reply with an adult level explanation of what she felt were the relevant pieces of scientific data that pointed to an Evolutionary belief being intellectually defensible.

HA HA! I am kidding again. She said this:

The fact that there are adults who deny that our species is millions of years old or that the earth is billions of year old is frankly terrifying and hard to believe.

I know I keep pointing this out but, once again, THIS WAS HER ENTIRE COMMENT. After all of what I just said, she stops by and replies with THIS. Is it just me? 

So I said;

I’m sorry that you are frightened by people who believe the truth. Or is it terrifying to you that people disagree with you? Once again, you haven’t said enough for me to fully understand you. Please try again.

But then I decided to see if I could find out anything else about her- AND I FOUND HER BLOG. 

Hey Amanda,
I just briefly checked out your blog, and… you’re an animal rights person?

You think that life is an accidental chemical byproduct of time plus matter plus chance, and that we differ from bacteria- our great, great grandparents, only in the complexity of our make up and not in what we essentially are. Bacteria, which you slaughter by the BILLIONS every time you take an antibiotic or wash your hands. You think we are merely one branch on a great tree of life which includes cabbages and wolves and fish and birds and fungi and worms- and yet you think that SOME branches on the tree of chemical accidents should NOT be slaughtered and eaten?

WHY? In all seriousness, how can you possibly hold to evolution as fact and animal rights of any kind as rational? On evolution, you are ape, ape is rat, rat is fish, fish is worm, and worm is bacteria- and all is dirt with a special arrangement. How can you justify this pretense that SOME forms of life- those which are cute and have eyes and noses- deserve to live- when others- those with leaves or berries- can be mercilessly ripped from the ground and devoured?

You say “Animals are not fundamentally different than humans in any way that makes it justified to kill them…” But what makes it unjust? What makes killing animals or people WRONG? What would make anything wrong?

And if you are an atheist as well as an evolutionist, why should we not kill and eat YOU? Why ought YOU be given protection from the natural ways of the lions and sharks and wolves and others? Fish eat other fish. Why should I not eat you?

Curious minds need to know.

Photo by Sam Kim on Pexels.com

This time she actually left more than a single sentence. I was delighted! Here is her reply:

What makes it wrong is the fact that it’s unnecessary.
If we needed to consume animal products, it would not be wrong to do so.
However, we don’t, therefore it is wrong. It’s that simple.
We need to kill bacteria to keep ourselves safe, we do not need to kill or use animals for any reason.

Overjoyed that she provided so much substance about which to reply, I asked some questions:

So because we are CAPABLE of living without it, choosing to live with it makes it “wrong”? Yet, here you are on a computer, using the internet- something the human race CAN survive without. Are you wearing shoes? Because I happen to know that you could live without them. Some would argue that it’s better for your feet to go barefoot. So, on your view, checking your email and wearing shoes are as evil as killing dogs to make them into tacos? Or are you saying that killing dogs to eat them is as immoral as checking your email and writing a blog on the internet- which you choose to do with regularity?

Am I understanding you properly this time? Feel free to explain your position to be in more detail if I have failed to grasp it.

Amazingly, she replied, but apparently she pays for her internet usage on a per-word plan of some kind.

Using the internet does not create victims the way the animal agriculture industry does, therefore it is ethical to do.

YES, this was her ENTIRE COMMENT…sigh… So I tried one more time.

Greetings again Amanda,
You said nothing about “Creating Victims” before. Your morality has gotten more complex. I am glad I have continued to ask questions.

But even if we can agree that the animal agriculture industry does “Create victims” as you say, could I not say that you only condemn the creation of victims because your own morality has not evolved high enough? For all of human history, law and culture have supported the keeping and killing of animals for food and even merely for sport. If ethics are determined by law as you stated, then you should agree that these practices are GOOD.

And even if you cannot agree now, then would you not agree that your morality will continue to evolve until you DO agree that killing animals for food and sport is good? After all, if morals evolve, then why would YOUR morals not evolve?

Or might good and evil be something above us and outside us? Might there be EVILS which would be evil even if every law supported it? And might there be goods which would remain good even if every culture and fashion and government forbade it? Once again, I think you would see that there is, and that you already know this to be true. But then you must realize that, in a universe without God, there is no GOOD or EVIL just as in a universe with no light there is no yellow or blue. God is the standard, and he teaches us to be like him. This is the standard above and outside us. Traditionally it is called the moral argument for God’s existence. You may have an emotional reaction to it, but if you allow yourself to consider it, I think you will begin to see it is a sound proof for the God of the Bible.

She had nothing to say in response, but hopefully she allowed herself to think about it. You should think about it too. And remember, Jesus Loves You.

This entry was posted in Feedback Fridays and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Evolving to the Level of Dog Tacos

  1. Ha! I definitely cannot live without shoes and tacos, but I suppose it’s not worth arguing about.

    I suspect Darwin himself would be horrified about what passes as Darwinism today. I’m sure you already know this but the Earth being billions of years old and man descending from apes didn’t even really come from Darwin. He started out just trying to study orchids and birds.


  2. wojtek says:

    I love tacos!

    Too bad Taco Bell’s gone down in quality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s