The principle on which pro-life Christian people base their edict of “killing a human life is murder and human life begins at conception” is one of the Ten Commandments: “thou shallt no kill”. Black & white isn’t it?  There are no conditions attached, but Christians do go to war, execute people and so on without taking the command in consideration. Things aren’t black and white. We can presume that this command is meant for human life and not animal or plant life. It is also clear from the bible that it only applies to members of ones own tribe and does not extend to other tribes such as the Midianites (Numbers 31) where God promoted genocide. As far as abortion is concerned they have taken the stand that killing human life is wrong and that human life begins at conception, not based on the bible but totally arbitrarily.

The beginning of Human Life can be viewed as follows:

1-     At Creation, whether by God or by nature. In that case life is continuous from the first Human being until now, so the female eggs and the sperm are human life and castration and masturbation are murders.

2-  At conception, and abortion is murder with no exceptions for rape, handicaps, the mother’s survival etc.

3-     At 8 weeks when the first neural net work is formed.

4-     At 22 weeks when the brain starts forming

5-   At birth. This actually was the norm up to a few hundred years ago and is still present in some remote areas. It was based on the once wide spread belief, in many different religions, that the personal “spirit” (breath) separated from the Great Spirit (the atmosphere) and entered the baby (first breath) and left the body at death (last breath) to rejoin the Great Spirit. So killing a baby before it took its first breath was not murder. A practice that was used in some religious establishments to abort unwed mothers or pregnant nuns.

Pick your choice. I suggest that we do not do that and leave religion out of it. If we want the government to interfere with free choice (personally I support free choice) and legislate, then at least we should let science decide the time frame in which abortion is acceptable and that would entail a decision somewhere between 3 and 4 as ou giving a woman enough time to make an intelligent decision between abortion, adoption or motherhood. To prevent abortion solely based on sex selection one could make it an offense to disclose the sex of a fetus until the permitted time frame has passed. It should NOT be based on arbitrary religious dogma. To the religious people who are convinced that God does not approve of any abortion and that heavenly retribution is the result, I say,  Judge not (Mattew 7:1). Let your God make the decision on how to judge the individual.

One commentator posed the question:
Do you think it is possible that science books, theories, etc. could be influenced by the egos and frail human nature of those producing them?
any intelligent person, at a minimum, has to have a theory to explain: 1. how did life begin? 2. how does time have no beginning 3. how does space go on forever.
I can tell you any scientific explanation proposed, dwarfs Christianity's, in being laughable and ridiculous.

Where should I begin. First you misuse the word" theory" as it is used in science. Scientists observe, then make a hypothesis (educated guess) as a starting point of further investigations. (Many of you here, misuse the word "theory" as meaning "hypothesis”.) Then facts either confirm or disprove the hypothesis. If enough facts and observation, confirmed by many contemporary peers, and this happens step after step, then it becomes a theory, this might not be the final step and the theory can then be further developed, step after step. and critically tested by many others. None of this is the case with any ancient written hypothesis. Repeating stories from witnesses and other hearsay does not constitute a theory.

There are indeed many pseudo science books written by writers with unconfirmed “hypothesis” but they lack the critical reviews and repeat experiments and are indeed influenced by “the egos and frail human nature of those producing them”. Erich Von Daniken’s Chariots of the gods, (1984) comes to mind here. There are some scientists, who publish before their contemporaries have tested and confirmed that their hypothesis can be developed into a theory, warranting further investigations. Such scientist will quickly lose their reputation and are shunned by the rest of the scientific community.  One such hypothesis,  that the earth, created in the same week as the universe, is younger than 10,000 years old. We can now measure the speed of light. We can measure how far stars are away with he parallax method. We can then calculate how long it takes for the star light to reach us, all very common methods, then we find that many stars are much farther away than 10, 000 light-years (the time it took for the light of the star to reach us since it came into existence). These measurements are taken by many observers at different times and confirmed so we can honestly say, that that hypothesis is incorrect and does not even qualify as a theory. End of story.

Secondly you state “any intelligent person, at a minimum, has to have a theory to explain: 1. how did life begin? 2. how does time have no beginning 3. how does space go on forever.” Is not true. You don’t “have to”. It is more honest to say “I don’t know yet (but because if I look at the development of science we will eventually find out) than to put up a speculation grounded in unproven and untested hypothesis written down in ancient times. Any one can dream up a hypothesis, no matter how unlikely, and then demand “proof that it is incorrect”. If that was logical I can hypothesize that Zeus (Thor and 4000 other deities) exist and ask you for proof that they don’t. You DON”T have to have a THEORY (misuse of the word again, use “speculation” or “hypothesis”). If you do you must have FACTS to back up the hypothesis. (another problem is that people who don’t agree simply ignore facts, and are in denial). The Theory of Gravity is another example. We don’t know the full answer yet but it is not a hypothesis. We can observe it (jump of a building, we can calculate rocket trajectories). It’s a theory although not fully developed yet.

Thirdly you wrote: “I can tell you any scientific explanation proposed, dwarfs Christianity's, in being laughable and ridiculous“ That was what Galileo was told by the Church about his scientific explanation, of the earth rotating about the sun!

Let’s be honest. ALL historical books are influenced by the opinion and beliefs of the writer. Whether written today or thousands of years ago, and have often fictional parts woven in to make it look more authentic. A "non-fiction" book written about the 2nd world war, written by an Englishman differs from that written by a German, even if they are about the same battle. A Russian or Japanese writer would have many different interpretations as well, especially if they are second or third hand stories retold by "researchers" doing their best to be 'neutral". That's the way it is. The ancient books face the same problem, no matter how you "slice" it. Many old "historical" tales are retold tales that existed before written language even when "history" was passed on through storytellers, poems and dances. Distortions and alterations are the result. Many of us probably participated in the game of giving a person, in a group, a story who then would whisper it to the next person and so on until it had passed through every body with the result that the original story was not even recognizable form the original. Thus we can argue about, who wrote what, about Jesus time but you can be sure that every writer put their stamp on the story. That's why the stories are not the same and give thousands of scholars’ headaches to tease out the truth and nobody can say for certain they found it.

To circumvent the above difficulty, Christians say, although the bible was written by humans they were guided inspired by God so it is the unquestionable Word Of God,(that begs the question why use humans, and not produce the book him/herself, chiselled in stone on a mountain for example). Since it is easy to demonstrate (denial won't hack it) that there are some 400 contradictions and flaws in the narratives, starting with Genesis 1 & 2 (discussed often enough here), easily explained above that Humans wrote the bible because "God does not make mistakes” In the new testament we find the same problem. The stories are biased by the opinion of the writers.

Did Jesus exist? We will never know for sure. No matter who we quote or listen too. There are some things we can dismiss or verify. Was there a Tower of Babel? Probably yes, we might have found some remnants. Is therefor the bibles account 100% correct? Not on your life. Can we scientifically show the approximate age of the Earth? or the universe? Yes. Can we measure the speed of light? Can we measure how far stars are away by a simple "parallax method"? Yes. Did we find that some stars are so far away that it takes many more years for their light to reach us than 10,000 years? Yes we did. Those are FACTS we can apply to our narratives. Was there a big flood? most likely, Did a comet destroy a tribal settlement? most likely, but the details are questionable and often fictional. The logistics quoted by the defenders of a young earth are demonstrable false (we see stars much older, as explained above). The "logistics" quoted for all breathing animals to be fitted n the ark are impossible and begs the question why not just save Noah and his family and recreate all the animals again after the flood? The bible stories do unquestionably contain some historical happenings but they are distorted and changed through the retelling and many translations and therefor cannot be taken literally.

We can learn from some of the wise and useable parts and so learn from history and disregard those parts which obviously do not fit our current situation because of scientific discoveries we have made and are still making.

To all creationists: You are basing your argument on the creation story in Genesis and the fact that this is literally God’s word. Let’s used examine “God’s Word” literally!

Read Genesis 1, and pay especially attention to vs23 to 31.Here God describes (or Moses inspired by God, it’s God’s word remember) that after the fifth day” god made all animals, cattle, creeping things and ”how good it was”. THEN God “created man in his image. Male and female he created them and he said “be fertile and multiply” OK so far so good, it is the truth because it is god’s word!

Now let’s read genesis 2 vs 5  No field scrub, no grass. Next: vs 7 god creates Adam (one single male, no female) Blows the spirit (Air) in his nose and Adam became alive. Next God made the trees in the Garden of Eden, settle Adam in it and in vs 18/19 made the animals and birds out of the ground (after creating Adam, as opposed to the genesis  story, where man is created last). Vs 20 “but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man”. Then God put Adam to sleep and created Eve.

AS you can see these are two different stories. Explainable if Moses made a mistake under God’s guidance, or God’s memory failed when he told Moses a second time.

Which one is true and needs to be taken literally?

The logical explanation is that Moses or someone else or two different persons, wrote down old myths (that resemble similar ancient myths) and when stories are repeated they do change and get altered, as we well know from simple experiments which kids often do in class or at parties, you probably participated in that kind of experiment, and found out that the final story at the end of passing it on did not even resemble the original.

The truth is staring you right in the face, but I bet you will not see it because you suffer from a bad case of “Cognitive dissonance”  (look it up):

dissonance reduction can be achieved in four ways:[

1. Change behavior/cognition

2. Justify behavior/cognition by changing the conflicting cognition

3. Justify behavior/cognition by adding new cognitions

4. Ignore/Deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs

Number 4 is what creationist especially do, by ignoring the Bible parts that do not fit their beliefs or denying information and facts presented in favor of evolution. Their dissonance is so strong that they cannot change behavior (no.1).

I’ll be very interested in your comments and how you will talk yourself out of the fact that Genesis 1 is not the same story as genesis 2 in a manner that is convincing to others, religious, or not who do not suffer Cognitive Dissonance to the extend that you do. If you stay silent I must conclude you have agreed that the Bible cannot be taken literally and that the genesis of the bible is an interesting myth(s).

T0 Benjamin Andrews You falsely assume I don't know what cognitive dissonance means and that I'm not able to see the truth for myself.  You're a typical evolutionist in that you live in a world of falsehood, lies, deception, and misleading.  The bible is the truth, and while some parts of it are harder to understand than others, it does not contradict itself.  In the original language it was written, it is perfect, and if you don't know Hebrew & Greek you will struggle and misinterpret some passages, but that being said, the central message comes through: God created everything.  You'll have to deal with that and with Him someday.  People like yourself strain at the gnat, only to wind up swallowing the camel.  You're not looking for an answer, you're looking to be critical of God's Word.  He is not mocked, someday you'll pay a price for insulting His Word.

Genesis 1 is a general overview and in Genesis 2 it moves to the specific.  The creation account is not a complete restatement in chapter 2, it just provides some detail.  God created the animals in Genesis 1.  In Genesis 2, it is stating that God made the animals (past tense) and He (God) was brining them to Adam so he'd name them.   Do your own homework instead of trying to knock the Bible.  It has withstood the test of time.

Unless you're born again you can not see the kingdom of God.  If one of us is unable to see the truth staring them in the face I think you're the one with the problem.  I live for Christ.  I suspect you serve the father of lies.  Either way, don't bother contacting me again.  I'll not respond to you any further.  As the scripture says:  Matt. 6 “Don’t give holy things to dogs, and don’t throw your pearls ·before [to] ·pigs [T swine]. ·Pigs will only trample on them, and dogs will turn to attack you.
Gen 1:25-27 says
God created the animals (before He created man and woman) God created man then woman
Gen 2:18-19 says God created man then woman (already done in Genesis 1)
God made (already formed) the animals (past tense, a done deal) and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

The excuse, you use, (and that I have seen in other replies, indicating a common origin) that the “original” in Hebrew and Greek was perfect but the translations are not perfect or hard to understand is of course admitting that the translators were not guided by God and that God could not make the Bible easy to understand and made it possible for the bible to be misinterpreted. Thanks for the admission that we cannot trust or understand the “Word of God.” The almighty could not make the translations perfect. No wonder there are so many versions, which one do you use?

If you are going to refer to the bible, quote the bible, rather than make up a statement such as “God created the animals (before He created man and woman). God created man then woman”. Gen1:25-27:

“God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle and all kinds of creepy things of the earth. God saw how good it was. Then God said “ let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and the cattle and over all the creatures that crawl on the ground. God created man in his image: in the divine image created him: male AND female he created them”.

You admit here that God, in Gen 1, created the animals BEFORE he created Adam and Eve

Now lets examine the EXACT wording in Gen.2:18-19

You stated: “God created man then women (already done in Genesis 1)” That is NOT in Gen 2:18-19.  It tells us that God created Adam, then the animals so Adam would not be alone, and finally Eve. IT IS VERY CLEAR! After God created Adam in Ge2:7  he spoke to Adam in Gen 2:18-19

“ The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought him to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name”

God did not say “I have already made a suitable partner for him” He said “I WILL make”. Furthermore “SO” establishes here, that God concluded, because Adam was ALONE (no animals), he needed animals. NOWHERE does that say, as you stated: “God made (already formed) the animals (past tense, a done deal) and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them” A FALSIFIED statement to mislead people who are too lazy to look up the real text. It is a normal “past tense” just like it is used used in “God SAID” and “the Lord FORMED the man out of clay” or “ he TOOK out one of his ribs”, you are grasping at straws here by using a lie!

I know that because of your severe case of dissonance you cannot even “see” this but I answer you anyway so that other people, not blinded by dissonance, will see how wrong you are and that it is you who is living “in a world of falsehood, lies, deception, and misleading.” as you so aptly stated.

Why do people cling to a certain belief while the evidence strongly points to a direction which shows that the belief cannot be correct.  Usually I try to avoid “big” words but here I must use the term “Cognitive Dissonance” as it describes so accurately the psychological condition that we all display to some extent. It is part of our brain function but it varies greatly from person to person.  Psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989), defines it as follows:
“In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.”
We  humans, don’t like mental stress and therefor we will try to avoid information which causes it or which will increase it. In order to reduce it we can change our opinion or behavior if we are willing to do so but many people will ignore or deny any information that is in conflict with existing beliefs.

In his 1956 book “When Prophesies Fails” Festinger recalls that the result of a failed prophecy of a cult believing that a UFO would land and that only cult members would survive the destruction of the earth, did not result in a change of their belief but instead they explained, that the aliens had given the world population a second change and that they now must go out in the world to spread their religion even more strenuously. The failure increased their belief instead of eliminating it.

To many of us where this tendency is not very strong, we are perplexed by these people, who cannot see the illogical position they take and consider them stupid and uneducated. This is not the case. There are many highly educated and intelligent people who have a strong, perhaps inherited, tendency to reduce dissonance by ignoring or denying information conflicting with their beliefs and literally cannot change their position but try to justify it by, what sometimes seems to others, illogical and unbelievable arguments.

We cannot change their opinions or beliefs. That should be understood and tolerated of course.  I personally wouldn’t care but I do think that we should attempt to bring both sides of the argument to the public to let fence sitters decide which is the most believable conclusion because there are consequences. Problems arise when they are so convinced of their beliefs that they start to insist to bring their illogical version, such as the one on creationism into the school system or try to change the laws of the land to confirm with their beliefs. In that case we must firmly oppose their efforts.