Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: A bit tongue in cheek: I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level. But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc? I mean, we do not have to rely on "hit and miss" mutations and all the problems associated with irreducible complexity. We can design it and implement it? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself!!
But I suppose it is much easier to hypothesize about assumed development than actually getting something to work - like getting a living organism from non-living material - despite the Miller-Urey experiment that is cited as "proof" and with new discoveries now found to be less likely true than when it was first proposed.
The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.
This concession was made by even an honest "evolutionist" the late Dr Colin Patterson "‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’(http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-...al-fossils)
Sometimes however, this honesty is not exercised - as proven by Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man etc. etc - putting forward for fact that which is known fabrications to support a theory.
At the same time we devalue human life - such that the killing of babies after birth is discussed "( On February 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article written by philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Its title was “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”)
If life is a mere "fluke", what is the value of human (or any life for that matter)? Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why? Because you are the healthiest and most "intelligent" of a "batch" of newborns whose biological mother and father can offer you the best opportunities. How many of us would have survived?
Human life has value, irrespective of your financial status, looks, IQ or any other arbitrary measure. You have value because you were in the mind of God long before you were born and He loves you, irrespective of any of the facts mentioned (Social status etc).
You clearly have no idea how evolution works, if you think it works in "levels". As for remote eyes: derp. Remote eyes would have to work through telepathy (impossible) and be separate from the human body. So they wouldn't develop with the human body. Anyway, major changes like that don't happen much at all, even over millions of years. Most of our bodily features of note (such as eyes) developed in very primitive versions back when we were clumps of a couple of cells.
As for god valueing everyone equally. . . what if you're born a woman?
I believe that people have value because we assign them value. They have no less value with or without a god- they have the same amount society has always afforded them, because society affords it to them. Taking away something that does not exist changes almost nothing. Taking away god doesn't change how I see others as people. If it would for you- get mental help.
What falls away is always, and is near.
Also, I am not pretending to be female, this profile picture is my wonderful girlfriend. XD
A bit tongue in cheek: I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level. But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc? I mean, we do not have to rely on "hit and miss" mutations and all the problems associated with irreducible complexity. We can design it and implement it? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself!!
But I suppose it is much easier to hypothesize about assumed development than actually getting something to work - like getting a living organism from non-living material - despite the Miller-Urey experiment that is cited as "proof" and with new discoveries now found to be less likely true than when it was first proposed.
The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.
This concession was made by even an honest "evolutionist" the late Dr Colin Patterson "‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’(http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-...al-fossils)
Sometimes however, this honesty is not exercised - as proven by Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man etc. etc - putting forward for fact that which is known fabrications to support a theory.
At the same time we devalue human life - such that the killing of babies after birth is discussed "( On February 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article written by philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Its title was “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”)
If life is a mere "fluke", what is the value of human (or any life for that matter)? Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why? Because you are the healthiest and most "intelligent" of a "batch" of newborns whose biological mother and father//other caretakers can offer you the best opportunities. How many of us would have survived?
Human life has value, irrespective of your financial status, looks, IQ or any other arbitrary measure. You have value because you were in the mind of God long before you were born and He loves you, irrespective of any of the facts mentioned (Social status etc).
What does god have to do with examples of evolution that we see? BTW, what exactly do you mean by hypothesize? There are two clear examples in the OP. Did you even read it or are you just taking an evolution thread to be an invitation to preach?
(May 1, 2012 at 9:22 am)Aegrus Wrote: You clearly have no idea how evolution works, if you think it works in "levels".
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. Maybe explain? Do you not agree with the “tree of life?” (phylogeny) You seem to disagree with Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. If you do, I will be happy to receive your reasons for having an opposing view.
Quote:As for remote eyes: derp. Remote eyes would have to work through telepathy (impossible) and be separate from the human body. So they wouldn't develop with the human body. Anyway, major changes like that don't happen much at all, even over millions of years. Most of our bodily features of note (such as eyes) developed in very primitive versions back when we were clumps of a couple of cells.
OK. What about a nice pair of multicolored wings – which will make it much faster than walking (and cheaper I suspect). What I would really like to have is an umbrella that I can use to protect me from the African sun and thunderstorms. Or “wheels” that can turn as fast as the revolutions of a flagellum – which will make traveling a breeze (in more than one way)
Quote:As for god valuing everyone equally. . . what if you're born a woman?
You are suggesting that woman are of less value than men?
Quote:I believe that people have value because we assign them value. They have no less value with or without a god- they have the same amount society has always afforded them, because society affords it to them. Taking away something that does not exist changes almost nothing. Taking away god doesn't change how I see others as people. If it would for you- get mental help.
So you accept that your value is dependent upon what other people think of you? This is exactly the point. If enough people think of you as worthless piece of flesh and negatively affect what they perceive as beneficial for their specific needs, they can kill you – because they have assigned “no value” to you. You are not far from what Hitler considered appropriate – a small Hitler?
Shame on you for believing that your value depends on what other people think of you. You are worth a lot more. A whole lot more – and I do not even know you, but I believe in your inherent value, despite the fact that we disagree on some matters and you have insulted me (which comes with the territory)
You have not addressed my question :” Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why?”
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: A bit tongue in cheek: I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level. But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc? I mean, we do not have to rely on "hit and miss" mutations and all the problems associated with irreducible complexity. We can design it and implement it? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself!!
Not quite up that point in technology, I'm afraid. And I'd prefer to keep my eyes in my head while having my handy insect-drones scout for me and getting the display directly in my brain. Welcome, btw, I don't recall having 'met' you before.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: But I suppose it is much easier to hypothesize about assumed development than actually getting something to work - like getting a living organism from non-living material - despite the Miller-Urey experiment that is cited as "proof" and with new discoveries now found to be less likely true than when it was first proposed.
A hypothesis is based on observation and together those things are the beginning of science. Actually getting something to work always involves a hypothesis: it's the idea that something could work if you tried 'this'. Anyone who cites an experiment as 'proof' doesn't sufficently understand the scientific method. It's evidence, not proof. And recent duplications of the Miller-Urey experiment run with a more modern understanding of the likely composition of the ancient atmosphere produced a greater variety of complex organic molecules than the original experiment. And speaking of getting something to work, did you know that a couple of years ago, an entire bacterial genome was synthesized from scratch, placed in a denucleated cell, which then 'came to life' and was able to reproduce, thus pioneering the field of synthetic biology? That's what hypothesizing can lead to.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.
Your understanding of the fossil record seems to be out-of-date. We have remarkably complete sequences for a variety of species, including humans, horses, and whales.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: This concession was made by even an honest "evolutionist" the late Dr Colin Patterson "‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’(http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-...al-fossils)
You should really look up 'quote-mining' to find out what most of us here think of the practice.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: Sometimes however, this honesty is not exercised - as proven by Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man etc. etc - putting forward for fact that which is known fabrications to support a theory.
One of these things is not like the others.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: At the same time we devalue human life - such that the killing of babies after birth is discussed "( On February 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article written by philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Its title was “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”)
Before the Enlightenment that freed us from the tyranny of theocracy, the killing of babies was more than discussed.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: If life is a mere "fluke", what is the value of human (or any life for that matter)?
The same as if it isn't a fluke. It's not where you came from that matters, it's where you're going.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why? Because you are the healthiest and most "intelligent" of a "batch" of newborns whose biological mother and father//other caretakers can offer you the best opportunities. How many of us would have survived?
The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us why life is so diverse. It doesn't tell us what we should do.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: Human life has value, irrespective of your financial status, looks, IQ or any other arbitrary measure. You have value because you were in the mind of God long before you were born and He loves you, irrespective of any of the facts mentioned (Social status etc).
Saying that if we have value because God values us is the same thing as saying we have no intrinsic value.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.
Please stay off those creationist websites. They'll rot your brain and make you spew crap like this.
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Carnavon Wrote:OK. What about a nice pair of multicolored wings – which will make it much faster than walking (and cheaper I suspect). What I would really like to have is an umbrella that I can use to protect me from the African sun and thunderstorms. Or “wheels” that can turn as fast as the revolutions of a flagellum – which will make traveling a breeze (in more than one way)
I don't think anyone in history ever implied that evolution was a conscious thought. You don't simply choose to spawn whatever you want. Conversely though, you mentioned the African sun and wanting protection from it. What can you tell me about African people?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
May 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm (This post was last modified: May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(May 1, 2012 at 11:57 am)Carnavon Wrote: You are suggesting that woman are of less value than men?
He is suggesting that the Bible suggests that God values men more than women.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: So you accept that your value is dependent upon what other people think of you? This is exactly the point.
Your value to other people IS dependent on what they think of you. Your value to yourself is based on what you think of you.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: If enough people think of you as worthless piece of flesh and negatively affect what they perceive as beneficial for their specific needs, they can kill you – because they have assigned “no value” to you.
For example, if you're a sociopath serial killer who is a menace to the safety of others? I take it you are against capital punishment, then.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: You are not far from what Hitler considered appropriate – a small Hitler?
And congratulations on winning the race to Godwin the thread.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: Shame on you for believing that your value depends on what other people think of you. You are worth a lot more. A whole lot more – and I do not even know you, but I believe in your inherent value, despite the fact that we disagree on some matters and you have insulted me (which comes with the territory)
You're assuming that other people don't value him really, really highly. You seem to be included in that number. It seems to be a common (though not universal) human trait to value other people enough not to want to kill them for trivial reasons. Common enough that no society would allow indiscriminate murder to be the norm.
(May 1, 2012 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: You have not addressed my question :” Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why?”
The way you put it sounds more like a demand, but I'll bite. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. We eat them. Being alive doesn't qualify you for protection. Being genetically human doesn't qualify you for protection--my cheek scrapings are genetically human, there's nothing sacred about a particular arrangement of genes. Being a person...that's a different matter. A person has thoughts, hopes, dreams, fears, loves, history, and is entangled with the lives of other people. Such a being isn't to be ended lightly, there will never be another just like it. We are people too, and we share a bond that allows us to empathize with and appreciate them. Sentiment is more than enough reason for me to not kill anyone, and want to live in a society where my rights as a person and individual are protected: and I want that for everyone. Heck, I'm even looking forward to cultured tissue steaks so we don't have to kill cows for meat anymore, because their lives aren't valueless either just because they're lower on the food chain than I am.
This is why not all life is valuable. The christian life called Carnavan appearently is so worthless to even its owner that he would squandered it all swimming in sewage of bible.
(May 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Heck, I'm even looking forward to cultured tissue steaks so we don't have to kill cows for meat anymore, because their lives aren't valueless either just because they're lower on the food chain than I am.
That would lead to fewer cows being born.
Now would the cows prefer to have a bit of life then be slaughtered or to be replaced entirely by grown tissue.... discuss.
