(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Your understanding of the fossil record seems to be out-of-date.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.
