login
Cloned Neanderthals? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-02-12 9:48 PM in reply to: #2670976 |
Elite  4547   |  Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals?Renee - 2010-02-12 10:17 PM Baowolf - 2010-02-12 9:58 PM I am all ears. Explain how a lack of a creator, a lack of a universal moral code and a free license to do anything, anarchy, works for civilization and in how I should behave in life and in my next IM? The answer, for me, is the most obvious one. Humans have managed to develop a universal moral code - the evidence is the imperfect civilization you witness around the world. We have created ethics, values and morals. We continue to evolve socially, as we have for thousands of years. One need only study our ancient and world histories to understand that evolution. Exactly Renee. And may I add, Baowolf, who here mentioned a lack of a creator? Seriously, who threw that in there? I know I didn't. I am perfectly open to any religious point of view...up to where it contradicts rock-solid science. (for example, literal play-by-plays read from holy texts) I did ask some questions earlier Baowolf...perhaps I could get a response? What were Neanderthals? I figure that question's pretty on-topic. One more thing, why is the false choice always thrown out there that pits religious belief (always the one faith that person believes in) against total anarchy? I don't get that. Perhaps some individuals feel that if their one life-long held belief structure was gone, they'd sink into a life of depravity...really? One more time, I've gotta know, what were Neanderthals if not an evolutionary off-shoot of a common, distant ancestor? One more thing...if cloning neanderthals was used just to create a new guinea pig for scientific testing, one similar to human, but not human, I'd probably have personal objections to the process based on the fact they were pretty darn close to homo sapiens (us). They buried their dead, and from what we can gather from the burials, they grieved for the dead. Based on what Renee described so well as a universal moral code, I would object to utilizing them as disposable test subjects...as 99.99% of us would object to the use of homo sapiens for the same type of testing. |
| 2010-02-12 10:08 PM in reply to: #2666390 |
Elite 5316   Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? "The early oceans were an organic soup of chemicals, not a bunch of rocks sitting in water. How they became alive may still be a matter of some debate (and if you want to posit that the initial "spark of life" was god breathing life into non-living matter, that's fine. I don't believe that's the case.....It only takes one occurence of the chemical soup forming some sort of self-generating life to continue the process. Life wants to live...." "What a silly concept, "neanderthal." My Intelligent Design books clearly explain there's no such thing...they were just very strong humans. " =sarcasm=there is no intelligent design. But the evolutionary argument that the survival of the fittest is the only driving force for life, or even the primary force is contrary to this "universal moral code." We actually give extra services and financial resources to old people, mentally retarded individuals, sick people, etc. This makes no sense. This is causing weaker people to procreate. From an evolutionary status, even if we are all working together for human survival, we should be cleansing the world of weaker specimens instead of helping them. This is similar to Hitler and even Obama's stance that those who are eaters and not workers really don't have a right to life. Abortion, euthenasia, involuntary sterilization, slavery, cloning for body parts, harvesting baby brains for stem cells, etc. are all way more consistant with the evolutionary stance for those in power. The Christian/creation morality is diametrically opposed to evolution's driving force. If God or a creator exists, then there isn't really a problem with people getting taller over time due to better health related to more food, etc. If there is no God then then our society is set up completely wrong and Hitler was correct and should be considered a hero for his insight and proactive stance toward evolution. The place of the neaderthal, parallel to, completely different than or as part of a developemental process of human's over time is not really as important to me as the thought of cloning one to experiment on. He would probably be the property of the person/company/government that cloned him. Like rats whose DNA is patented, therefor any rat with that DNA belongs to that company. We are looking at some really serious societal rules, human rights issues. Edited by Baowolf 2010-02-12 10:36 PM |
| 2010-02-12 10:26 PM in reply to: #2671028 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? Baowolf - 2010-02-12 11:08 PM But the evolutionary argument that the survival of the fittest is the only driving force for life, or even the primary force is contrary to this "universal moral code." We actually give extra services and financial resources to old people, mentally retarded individuals, sick people, etc. This makes no sense. This is causing weaker people to procreate. From an evolutionary status, even if we are all working together for human survival, we should be cleansing the world of weaker specimens instead of helping them. This is similar to Hitler and even Obama's stance that those who are eaters and not workers really don't have a right to life. Abortion, euthenasia, involuntary sterilization, slavery, cloning for body parts, harvesting baby brains for stem cells, etc. are all way more consistant with the evolutionary stance for those in power. The Christian/creation morality is diametrically opposed to evolution's driving force. If God or a creator exists, then there isn't really a problem with people getting taller over time due to better health related to more food, etc. If there is no God then then our society is set up completely wrong and Hitler was correct and should be considered a hero for his insight and proactive stance toward evolution. Yay! Another thread comparing Obama to Hitler. Oy vay! You wrote: We actually give extra services and financial resources to old people, mentally retarded individuals, sick people, etc. This makes no sense. It makes perfect sense! It's a universal moral code(common sense) that tells people to treat others the way they'd want to be treated if they were in that person's shoes. The respect to elders and the sick is given often not out of pure altruism or strict adherence to religious dogma, but for a little bit more selfish reason...because we'll all be in those situations one day! If we show our children by our behaviors it's acceptable to treat elders and the ill poorly, guess how they'll treat us! Baowolf, you also wrote: If there is no God then then our society is set up completely wrong and Hitler was correct and should be considered a hero for his insight and proactive stance toward evolution." I fail to see your logic here...and besides, for the 2nd time I'm stating, Nobody has said there's no God! Who has said that? And talk about a glaring omission of other options! It's either God exists or Hitler was right?? omg! Baowolf, just because people understand and accept evolution doesn't mean they don't believe in God or gods. They are not mutually exclusive. Scientists who put forth claims that there is no God or are no gods are just looking to sell books. (nobody knows) That said, religious figures who dispute the very real existence of evolution are just looking to sell their faith. I have no use for either of those business plans. |
| 2010-02-12 10:26 PM in reply to: #2671028 |
Extreme Veteran 481 Coppell | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? Like rats whose DNA is patented, therefor any rat with that DNA belongs to that company. We are looking at some really serious societal rules, human rights issues. I'm not trying to stir the pot here but if it's a human rights issue wouldn't that presume that the Neanderthal is a human? Beyond that, isn't there room for both God and evolution? It always seems that in these debates they are treated as mutually exclusive and I've never understood that. Edited by pds0006 2010-02-12 10:35 PM |
| 2010-02-12 11:08 PM in reply to: #2666390 |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? Alright, last post and I am out. Believing in God does not mean that animals/people/trees do not change in response to the environment. I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that premoridal soup made it all the way to humans without "intelligent design"/God/help. My statements were based on the presentation of the evolutionists who do not believe in god. |
| 2010-02-13 1:30 PM in reply to: #2671046 |
Pro 4292 Evanston, | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? pds0006 - 2010-02-12 11:26 PM Like rats whose DNA is patented, therefor any rat with that DNA belongs to that company. We are looking at some really serious societal rules, human rights issues. I'm not trying to stir the pot here but if it's a human rights issue wouldn't that presume that the Neanderthal is a human? Beyond that, isn't there room for both God and evolution? It always seems that in these debates they are treated as mutually exclusive and I've never understood that. Neither have many Christians, including scientists and (non-scientist) yours truly. My brain has no problem grasping at the same time, "In the beginning, God created..." and the idea He set in motion evolution. The Bible tells us WHO and WHY, and He has let us be so smart (S-M-R-T, I'm smart!) as to figure out the HOW along the way, and to develop amazing technologies and stuff. That said, I do believe that He created humanity specially -- that's part of the WHY. Human-like creatures may have evolved via homo erectus etc. (not from Neanderthals, scientists will tell you Neanderthal was an evolutionary dead-end), but we became human when He decided to create and breathe his Spirit into us. That said, I still see no point and plenty of ethical problems in cloning Neanderthals. |
| 2010-02-13 1:30 PM in reply to: #2671069 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Cloned Neanderthals? Baowolf - 2010-02-13 12:08 AM Alright, last post and I am out. That's too bad because I was dying to know what folks who don't understand evolution thought neanderthals were. Believing in God does not mean that animals/people/trees do not change in response to the environment. Nobody here stated God and evolution are mutually exclusive...not one mention of that. As I stated and I will repeat, "God" or "Gods" can co-exist with evolution...not in a science classroom, but on a philosophical level in Philosophy or Religious Studies classes. I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that premoridal soup made it all the way to humans without "intelligent design"/God/help. What part of the fossil record, genetics research, geologic research, carbon dating, etc. isn't enough? Honestly, short of building a time machine and taking you back through billions of years of time, you're not going to accept evolution...heck, even if we did go back you'd be talking about an invisible hand of God. That's all fine and dandy. Invisible hands are fine for philosophical discussions but they have no place in a science classroom. My statements were based on the presentation of the evolutionists who do not believe in god. What about the huge numbers of those who understand evolution AND believe in God or Gods? Of course it is, we're in agreement! There are animal rights and human rights. True, as I mentioned before I would not be comfortable treating Neanderthals like we do lower animals of this era in testing situations, etc. If we were to bring back this creature there are really good odds that it/(s)he would be abused by whoever cloned him. I do not believe that whatever we might learn is worth whatever will/could happen to that animal/person/whatever. I think we're in agreement...but then again, I don't think there are great odds the neanderthals would be abused. To clone a neanderthal I'd have to imagine they would require human surrogates to carry them through, and no mother figure would allow the baby and child neanderthal to be hurt. It would be amazing to see what type of communication skills/emotional capacity the neanderthals would develop. Don't be saddened...I'd guess 99.99% of people reading our dialogue "value animal and human rights." We all (I hope) treat the elderly, sick, and challenged individuals with great respect. Why would you assume there are great #'s of people out there that think otherwise? You have let one issue (abortion) cloud your views on other social issues...affecting even hypothetical questions about neanderthals! And one more time...perhaps the 3rd time I've asked...what were neanderthals if not an evolutionary offshoot of a common ancestor of modern man? I really want to know. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK