Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origins of Genomic ‘Dark Matter’ Discoverd–Once Again, ID Predictions are Spot On

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This just in from Phys.Org.

Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these “initiation machines,” because humans only have about 30,000 genes. “This finding is even more remarkable, given that fewer than 10,000 of these machines actually were found right at the site of genes. Since most genes are turned off in cells, it is understandable why they are typically devoid of the initiation machinery.” . . .

The remaining 150,000 initiation machines—those Pugh and Venters did not find right at genes—remained somewhat mysterious.
These initiation machines that were not associated with genes were clearly active since they were making RNA and aligned with fragments of RNA discovered by other scientists,” Pugh said. “In the early days, these fragments of RNA were generally dismissed as irrelevant since they did not code for proteins.” [Yeah, that’s right—you called it “junk DNA” and said it was proof contradicting design.] . . . . .

Pugh and Venters further validated their surprising findings by determining that these non-coding initiation machines recognized the same DNA sequences as the ones at coding genes, indicating that they have a specific origin and that their production is regulated, just like it is at coding genes. . . . . . .

These non-coding RNAs have been called the ‘dark matter’ of the genome because, just like the dark matter of the universe, they are massive in terms of coverage—making up over 95 percent of the human genome. However, they are difficult to detect and no one knows exactly what they all are doing or why they are there,” Pugh said. “Now at least we know that they are real, and not just ‘noise’ or ‘junk.’ Of course, the next step is to answer the question, ‘what, in fact, do they do?'”[Really?!! “Dark Matter?” You called it “junk-DNA”; it’s only now, now that you’ve been proven wrong on a grand scale that you’ve decided to call it “dark matter.”][P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., “global warming” = “climate change”, or, “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice”. You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.]

So, let’s see: 150,000 “initiation machines” (Wow, are there “machines” in the cell?) in the Non-Coding, and 10,000 in the coding portion. I wonder which is more important???? And what has ID been predicting since the late 1990’s? That the Non-Coding portion of the genome is where the bau-plan (blueprint, more or less) of the animal is to be found, and that proteins are but the building blocks (kind of forming the “parts list” of life’s manufacture); i.e., that ‘genes-coding’ portions of the genome are of less importance to life than the ‘non-coding’ portions. Here, it is 15:1 in favor of the Non-Coding—and in full agreement with ID predictions.

And, guess what, finally we get to put to rest the ‘junk-DNA’ argument. How do I know? Because it’s now called “dark matter.”

Comments
Bruce David: The term "zygote" is often used in an imprecise fashion, by all sorts of people. Here's an excerpt from an essay from Dr. Dianne Irving:
For our purposes here, note that Stage One of the Carnegie Stages includes the following as different phases of the development of the early human embryo during the process of fertilization: the penetrated oocyte, the ootid, and the zygote. That is, Stage One of the Carnegie Stages does not consist merely of the zygote alone. Nor does the zygote form at the beginning of the process of fertilization (when the sperm penetrates the oocyte)..., but rather at the end of that process.
Wikipedia is therefore technically mistaken in its claim that a zygote "is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction." Fertilization begins when the sperm penetrates the oocyte. Hope that helps. Cheers.vjtorley
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Bruce David, Thank you for your comment (#11). You write:
Here is my own reason for rejecting it (in a nutshell): to me a human being is a human body inhabited by a soul. Based on what I have read (primarily Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, both by Michael Newton) the soul does not join the developing fetus until there is a sufficiently developed brain for it to connect to. This happens some time during the third trimester. Since there is no soul joined to the body before that time, there is no person present, by definition.
I find it amusing that someone should reject the view that a human person begins at fertilization, on what he admits to be religious grounds: a belief about when souls can enter bodies. In any case, the argument that brain waves mark the beginning of human personhood is refuted here in my online book, Embryo and Einstein: Why they're equal. See also Professor Maureen Condic's article, Life: Defining the Beginning by the End. In any case, there's no reason why a soul should require an advanced brain: if the soul exists, then its role would obviously be to direct the embryo's development from the get-go. Finally, there's nothing in my argument which hinges on the question of souls. The essence of my argument is that a human embryo is a person, because it is a complete organism, embodying a developmental program by which it directs and controls its own development into a rational human adult, and in addition, because it has already started assembling itself into a rational human adult. What I'm arguing, in other words, is that an entity which is already making itself into a rational adult is just as valuable as that adult. Nothing which is added to it from outside in the course of its development - food, oxygen, lower-level information - confers any additional value on it. V + 0 = V. If an adult's inherent value is V, so is that of an embryo.vjtorley
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
If you registered, I will have access to the email you registered with. Alternatively, if you google my name, you can probably figure out which hit I am :)Elizabeth B Liddle
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Hi Lizzie, Well, I went to TSZ and registered, but I could not find a way to contact you except by posting a comment. I'm reluctant to post my address in a comment for all to see. How can I send you something "for your eyes only"? BruceBruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Thanks very much, Lizzie. I'll take you up on that offer. Don't forget to keep my address so you can look me up if you're every in California. :) BruceBruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Sorry, not Brent, Bruce! Got my Brs muddled.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #100:
Bruce, the quote is about “after conception.” After conception, the zygote exists no longer since there is now a full complement of chromosomes.
No, PaV, "zygote" is the biological term that is used to denote the fertilized egg before it begins to divide. It has the full complement of DNA. From Wikipedia: "A zygote. . .is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #98:
Do ‘dust clouds’ have DNA? Think things through. This isn’t an apt analogy.
Your original "proof" went like this: "Everything is very simple: human embryos give rise to human beings. All living human beings are ‘persons.’ Therefore, the human embryo is a ‘person.’" I pointed out that the logical rule you were apparently using was the following or something similar: If A gives rise to B, and B is C, Then A is also C. Then I noted that this was not a rule in any logical system with which I am familiar and furthermore my four counter-examples in #78 falsify it. Now you add that somehow the presence of DNA modifies the logic. So now your rule is apparently, If A gives rise to B, and B is C, and A and B have the same DNA, Then A is also C. This is no more logically compelling than your original proof. You cannot prove that a zygote is a human being, PaV, you just can't. It is a matter of definition, and definitions are not subject to proof. Anyone familiar with logic will confirm this.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Brent, I wrote a book for children called Pip and the Edge of Heaven. You might like it (you can peek inside at Amazon). I'd love to send you a copy if you contact me at TSZ (I'm afraid you'd have to reregister as the database had to be rebuilt after a hack a few months ago). You might like it. It was based on conversations with my actual son, between the ages of about 2 and 5. I don't think it's a million miles from what you are saying here, and although it was written for children, it is not a "childish" message.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
tjguy, re. #97: Thank you for your very courteous response. I will attempt to answer in the same spirit. The first thing I would like to say is that it is impossible for me to convey the depth and breadth of the teachings in the Conversations with God series in this format. There are nine volumes in total. Each can be read over and over and new insights can be gained with each reading. If you are really interested, read Book 1, the first in the series. That will give you a very good start on understanding what these remarkable volumes have to say to us. I will attempt to summarize some of this in my response to your questions below, but I simply cannot do it justice in the space available.
So for you, unconditional love means that God gives us the freedom to live however we want – is that right?
Yes, that's right.
From an outsiders perspective, honestly this sounds almost too good to be true. It is quite a convenient religion/belief system. No responsibility for anything we do. Everyone gets to go to “heaven” no matter how they live their life.
The fact that God will not punish us does not mean that there are not consequences for our actions. We are made in His image and likeness, which means among other things that our essential nature is also unconditionally loving. So when we violate that essential nature, we do damage to our souls, damage that we must spend time and effort to repair between lives. Also, there are rules built into the structure of creation such as "Like begets like," which roughly translates to "What goes around comes around," or "You reap what you sow." If you live from love, love will come back to you. If you live from hatred or greed your experience will reflect that choice. I know this to be true from my own experience. But it is also important to realize that this earthly plane is not our true home and we are not our bodies. This is just a place we come to to grow spiritually. It is an illusion. We can do no real damage to one another here, so that what appears so important and significant really isn't, in the larger scheme of things.
The other thing is that we have to define love. What would love do? That is very hard to say if we don’t know what love is. What would love do when we see others being picked on at school or at the office? What would love do when we see defenseless babies being killed by their parents before they are born? What would love do when our loved ones are dying and in pain or when a baby is born with Down’s Syndrome? (Some might advocate killing it. Others might advocate caring for it.) So for one person it is OK to kill it while it would be wrong for the other person to kill it? It’s really not so simple. And besides, who cares if you do what love would do or not?
"What would Love do now?" cannot be defined because every now is unique. We are made in God's image and likeness. This means that we each have an infallible knowing within us of what Love is. The trick is to be able to access that knowingness. It is enough to make the sincere effort. Will we make mistakes? Sure. But that is how we learn. This earthly existence is not reality; it is a place to learn and grow. What happens here is not so serious as it often seems to be.
No right and wrong. Bruce, you do realize that this is quite a claim, right? Given the fact that almost everyone seems to feel(I would even say “know”) deep down in their heart that some things are right and others are wrong, it would seem to me to be a hard claim to back up.
Certainly most human beings, myself included, have a sense of right and wrong. My view about this is that this sense is a culturally created idea that overlays our true inner knowing, which is to know what is loving and what is not. God tells us that in His eyes there is no right and wrong, which tells me that our own sense of right and wrong is not inherent in us, but is implanted there by our conditioning.
I see. I’m not sure how any of this can be verified. I would think that there are plenty of teachings that contradict each other in that bundle of ideas. I do believe that people have spiritual experiences, but my view is that if the experience differs from the revealed Word of God, then we know where that the source of that experience was not God.
You seem to have a different standard for my sources of spiritual truth than you do for your own. The Bible is in fact a collection of many books written by many different authors over vast stretches of time. There are thousands of contradictions within and between those books. The New Testament alone is a collection of 27 different books by different authors chosen from over 300 that were written in the century after Jesus' death. Who decided which books to include and which to reject? Human beings. Who wrote the ones that were included? No one knows in many cases, including the four gospels. How do you know that the Bible is the revealed word of God? You don't. You believe it. You have faith that it is, I don't doubt. But you don't know.
Like you said, there are lots of truth claims like this in the world so I wonder what makes you think that Walsh and these channelers are really hearing from God and have it right.
I have to go by my own inner knowing. What else do I have? Some Christian's word that the Bible is the revealed word of God? Some Muslim's assertion that the Koran is revelation and thus infallible? No thanks.
Absolute freedom brings with it the unwanted yet unavoidable companion of absolute meaninglessness. If we are free to live however we want, then it really doesn’t matter whether we choose to live a good or a bad life – which means our actions are meaningless in the ultimate sense.
Each soul who chooses to incarnate on this planet has a purpose for each such life. We may fulfill the purpose only partially or even not at all, but then we try again the next time around. The meaning of any particular existence is the meaning that we give it. Personally, I find that a life lived to the best of my ability from love and acceptance is very meaningful and immensely satisfying.
You might be very sure of your beliefs, but that is no guarantee they are true.
The same applies you.
You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth. If so, again, anything goes, including Hitler’s ideas, Stalin’s ideas, etc. And if there is no absolute truth, then why do you think that the books by Walsh are the “revealed word of God”? Just curious.
I do not claim that "there is no such thing as absolute truth." I do believe that there is absolute truth. My claim is that each of us cannot escape being his or her own authority for finding that truth. I believe that Conversations with God is revelation because of the quality of the material and how it resonates with my own inner knowing.Bruce David
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Bruce: The single cell called a zygote can hardly be called a human being. Bruce, the quote is about "after conception." After conception, the zygote exists no longer since there is now a full complement of chromosomes.PaV
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
goodusername: But I would say that they are human beings (as a member of the species) although not yet persons (as there is yet no mind). Do cheetahs have conversations? Ever? Latent in each embryo is the ability to have conversations and to think, etc. We 'develop' into persons because that is what we are from the beginning. It is not some 'layer' that is added on. Socialization is another thing.PaV
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Bruce: PaV:Everything is very simple: human embryos give rise to human beings. All living human beings are ‘persons.’ Therefore, the human embryo is a ‘person.’ Bruce: I have seen versions of this argument before, and it is fallacious. Here are some counterexamples that demonstrate that your conclusion does not follow: 1. It is known from cosmological principles that when a certain amount of interstellar dust collects within a given volume of space, the dust will give rise to a star. Does this imply that the dust cloud is a star? Of course not. Do 'dust clouds' have DNA? Think things through. This isn't an apt analogy. 2. Thoughts give rise to actions which give rise to artifacts—art, literature, technology, etc. Does this imply that thoughts are the artifacts? Certainly not. DNA is found in the cell. The DNA and the cell work cooperatively, or else nothing would happen. This interaction between DNA and cell gives rise to individual animals. It is much like the cooperation between human thought and human action. This is an argument in favor of ID, i.e., 'design.' Ask yourself this simple question: if there were never a thought, would there ever be an artifact? Then, likewise: if I find an artifact (an 'arrowhead') this implies a thought, right? The two cohere, just like the human person coheres in the human being. 3. Water vapor evaporating from the ocean gives rise to clouds. Does this imply that the water vapor is a cloud? Not until it condenses in the upper atmosphere. Yes, it does. It implies that water vapor under different conditions of temperature and pressure appears differently---kind of like a butterfly and a worm=same DNA. Water is water, after all. 4. Organic matter that falls to the ground gives rise to soil. Does this mean that the organic matter (leaves, dead animals, bodily waste, etc.) is soil at the moment it touches the earth? Again, no. If you look at the genome of an embryo, is it the same as that of the adult? So you see, PaV, the “therefore” in your statements quoted above is false. You, like many conservatives, have confused your opinions with objective truth. No, Bruce, you, like most liberals, wont' admit that there is 'objective truth.' That's the only problem. At the moment of conception the identity of an organism is formed. That identity continues on throughout all of its growth stages---much like your 'water vapor' and 'cloud' simile.PaV
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Thanks Bruce for taking the time to answer all those questions! I want to interact with what you said a little bit. My purpose is not to diss your faith, but to try and understand it better and to hopefully give you a chance to clarify what you believe a little better as well. It seems that you place your faith in the book or the contents of the book called “Conversations with God.” Your evidence on which you place your faith seems to be a lot of subjective mystical experiences of people as well as problems with the materialist philosophy. And you seem to believe that Walsh’s book is inspired by your God. You claim that your God places no conditions on you because He loves you unconditionally. So for you, unconditional love means that God gives us the freedom to live however we want - is that right? From an outsiders perspective, honestly this sounds almost too good to be true. It is quite a convenient religion/belief system. No responsibility for anything we do. Everyone gets to go to "heaven" no matter how they live their life. Is this kind of unconditional love really desirable? I’m not sure. In fact, I’m not even sure that placing no requirements on humans is a loving thing. It is obvious that we need help to know what is right and wrong. We also need help to choose what is right. And we all know that laws help preserve order in society so if there are no laws, if there are no consequences for our actions, why bother to do the "loving thing" when we don't want to? The other thing is that we have to define love. What would love do? That is very hard to say if we don’t know what love is. What would love do when we see others being picked on at school or at the office? What would love do when we see defenseless babies being killed by their parents before they are born? What would love do when our loved ones are dying and in pain or when a baby is born with Down’s Syndrome? (Some might advocate killing it. Others might advocate caring for it.) So for one person it is OK to kill it while it would be wrong for the other person to kill it? It’s really not so simple. And besides, who cares if you do what love would do or not? Everyone does what is right when they want to - even atheists. But the rub comes when doing what is right goes against what we want to do. I would think that your philosophy suffers at this point to. Is it loving for a parent to let his kid play in the street when they know it is dangerous for the child? I don’t think so. Is it loving for God not to give moral guidance to us? I don't think so.
You say: “There is no such thing as right and wrong, only what works and what doesn’t work depending on what you want to be, do, and have.” In the place of demands, my God issues a permanent invitation: return to Me by remembering who and what you truly are—created in my image and likeness. Part of this is in every moment to ask yourself, “What would Love do now?” and act according to the inner answer you receive.
Is this statement true in an absolute sense or just something that you and your spiritual guides happen to believe? In other words, is this an absolute standard that we can use to determine whether a particular action is right or wrong? I doubt you are saying that because you make it clear that there is no right or wrong. So acting in an unloving way cannot be considered to be wrong in an absolute sense of the word, right? No right and wrong. Bruce, you do realize that this is quite a claim, right? Given the fact that almost everyone seems to feel(I would even say "know") deep down in their heart that some things are right and others are wrong, it would seem to me to be a hard claim to back up. For example, what if some guy rapes your daughter and maybe kills her and is never caught - you wouldn't say he did something wrong? Illegal yes, but wrong in the moral sense? But no, you clearly said there is no such thing as right and wrong. So you would have no means by which to condemn such a rapist, right? Is this really realistic Bruce? I find it hard to conceive of a God who thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong.
You claim that this is your God’s invitation to us all: “Return to Me by remembering who and what you truly are—created in my image and likeness.”
Is this something you believe to be absolutely true - an absolute truth? Sounds almost biblical – the created in my image and likeness thing anyway comes from the Bible. The return to Me part is biblical as well, but it is also very man centered. All we have to do is remember who and what we are! Doesn’t make sense to me though. How do we know that Walsh really heard from God here? The Bible speaks of a time that is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. I don’t know, but it sounds an awful lot like this to me.
What do you base your faith on?
From channeled entities such as Seth, Bartholomew, and Michael. From between life recollections under hypnosis recorded in Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls by Michael Newton. From the reports of NDEs by people such as Anita Moorjani and Eben Alexander. From the writings of the great Sufi masters such as Rumi, Hafiz, and Ibn al ‘Arabi (although I don’t accept the entirety of Sufism). And most importantly, from the Conversations with God series of books, by Neale Donald Walsch, which I regard as the revealed word of God. There are other sources of my belief as well.
I see. I’m not sure how any of this can be verified. I would think that there are plenty of teachings that contradict each other in that bundle of ideas. I do believe that people have spiritual experiences, but my view is that if the experience differs from the revealed Word of God, then we know where that the source of that experience was not God. Like you said, there are lots of truth claims like this in the world so I wonder what makes you think that Walsh and these channelers are really hearing from God and have it right. And, why did God wait so long to reveal these important things to the world of humans? It sounds like your god is like the white-haired wimpy grandfather who just looks down on earth and smiles at all He sees. Anything goes. He never punishes evil or holds people responsible for their unloving acts. He won’t correct or punish anybody for anything because then His love would become conditional. Everybody is welcome no matter what. Is that accurate? Personally, I don’t think that is a rational idea. It makes a mockery of justice because it means that the many people who escape punishment in this life are never held responsible for their actions. There are also many unloving things that are not illegal so there is no punishment for them here and now, right? Bruce, I think you have the same problem that the Materialists have when it comes to morality. There is no such thing as absolute morality in your belief system so you really can’t condemn anything as being wrong, no matter how wrong it looks or feels. Sure, it means we have freedom, but is that really a good thing? Ask the Jews in Europe in Hitler's time. Ask the N. Koreans today. Ask the commoners during Mao's time. Absolute freedom brings with it the unwanted yet unavoidable companion of absolute meaninglessness. If we are free to live however we want, then it really doesn’t matter whether we choose to live a good or a bad life - which means our actions are meaningless in the ultimate sense. If people really believed there is no such thing as right and wrong, I would not want to live in that world! It would be like living in a world without laws and justice. Scary!
Bruce says: “I hate to break it to you, tjguy, but ultimately each of us is our own authority with regard to the nature and existence of God. Each of us has to choose from among all the myriad competing claims for truth. It is you who must decide what is true for you. There is no escape.”
True. We are all responsible for our own choices as to what we choose to believe and reject. However, our personal beliefs have nothing to do with what is really true or not. You might be very sure of your beliefs, but that is no guarantee they are true. You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth. If so, again, anything goes, including Hitler's ideas, Stalin's ideas, etc. And if there is no absolute truth, then why do you think that the books by Walsh are the "revealed word of God"? Just curious. Humans do not determine truth; we can only determine what we think/believe to be true. We might believe in two different things, but we cannot both be right. We might have different faiths, but there is only one truth and until we die, neither of us will know for sure. If finding the truth is important, we need to choose wisely. If it doesn't matter like you seem to imply, then who cares what we believe. I guess Christians, even the mafia, even Hitler, have nothing to worry about if your philosophy is true. But like you said, in the end, we all have to choose what we think is true. God bless you on your journey!tjguy
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Phinehas, re. #93:
Is your view that what constitutes a human being is not and cannot be objective itself objective?
You left out an important word: "definition". I said that the definition of what constitutes a human being is not and cannot be objective. This is true by virtue of the meaning of "definition". My definition of a human being is a human body occupied by a soul. Your definition is a member of the species homo sapiens (which still leaves open the question of what exactly constitutes membership). Neither of these is subject to any kind of confirmation other than each of us confirming that yes, that is how we define the term. They just are what each of us means by the term "human being". Hence they cannot be objective.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Buffalo, re. #90:
“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics”
This is absurd on the face of it. The single cell called a zygote can hardly be called a human being. It can neither hear nor see nor feel nor taste nor smell. It cannot think or remember or imagine. It has no arms or legs or even muscles with which to move itself. The only way to claim that it is a human being is to invoke what it will become if left in the womb, as PaV has done in #75. You can't even use the fact that it contains a full complement of human DNA. To use that to establish that it is a human being is to make everyone a murderer who has his or her hair cut or his appendix removed. However, to invoke its potentiality, or what it will become, to claim that it is a human being gets you into the kind of logical and definitional difficulties that we have been discussing in this thread. It's no slam dunk. It's certainly not objective truth.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
BD:
“A woman doesn’t want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or even a Mercedes Benz. She wants an abortion like a trapped animal will chew off its own foot to escape.” --Unknown
I wonder how Andrea Yates or Susan Smith would have characterized their desire.Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
BD:
Let’s be clear here. I am not claiming that I can prove that my views in this matter are true, nor do I have any stake in your believing them. My point in bringing them up is merely to demonstrate that the definition of what constitutes a human being is not and cannot be objective.
Is your view that what constitutes a human being is not and cannot be objective itself objective? Or merely subjective? If it is subjective, why should someone else give any more weight to it than to a claim that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla? Why would you use words like "is not and cannot" to express a subjective view? Do you often hear folks claim things like, "vanilla ice cream does not and cannot taste better than chocolate?"Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Mung, re. 91: This quote, of which I unfortunately have forgotten the attribution, says it more powerfully: "A woman doesn't want an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or even a Mercedes Benz. She wants an abortion like a trapped animal will chew off its own foot to escape."Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
No woman wants an abortion.
The facts are against you on this one.Mung
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
What is Personhood? Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings. “Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” Thomas Jefferson - See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/about-us/what-is-personhood/#.UjuUOn_QuSo When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This terrifies the pro-abortion foes! They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do! This then also begs the question, is every human being a person? There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity. If you look up the word “person” in your average dictionary (we’ll use Webster’s), you’ll find something like this: “Person n. A human being.” “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion: - See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/about-us/what-is-personhood/#.UjuUOn_QuSobuffalo
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Andre - Now how did the writer in Psalm know to use the analogy of being knitted inside the womb? A very good question. There are some other curious verses that we could ask the same question. How did they know?buffalo
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Smidlee, re. #86:
The fact is a baby is on it’s way and the parents know without any doubt the baby is coming and take action to keep it from being born they are guilty of murder just like David was. Sin comes from the heart.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Smidlee. I would urge you not to confuse your opinions with objective truth, however.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
PaV: A follow on to my #78: Your logic appears to be based on some rule such as this: If A gives rise to B, and B is C, Then A is also C. I know of no system of logic in which there is any such rule. In any case, my examples in #78 falsify it.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
I think it's silly to try to determine when a baby gains a soul. It doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter the enemy were the ones who actually killed Uriah. David was still guilty of murdering Uriah because of the intent of his heart. He knew Uriah would die for his country and not retreat in the heat of battle. The fact is a baby is on it's way and the parents know without any doubt the baby is coming and take action to keep it from being born they are guilty of murder just like David was. Sin comes from the heart.Smidlee
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
PaV #75
Everything is very simple: human embryos give rise to human beings. All living human beings are ‘persons.’ Therefore, the human embryo is a ‘person.’
If human embryos give rise to human beings, than human embryos are not yet human beings. But I would say that they are human beings (as a member of the species) although not yet persons (as there is yet no mind).
Now, if we’re dealing with any animal other than a human being, we don’t have discussions about whether or not the “cat” embryo is a “cat” embryo, or a “bat” embryo is a “bat” embryo, or that a “shark” embryo is a “shark” embryo. Bats give rise to bats; cats to cats, and sharks to sharks. Hence, human beings give rise to human beings.
If there aren't such discussions it's only because it's not very pertinent to anything as to when an embryo becomes a cat. But I don't know if there's anyone that would call an invisible speck of cells a "cat". We don't call acorns trees.goodusername
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Phinehas, re. #82:
You merely assert that the soul merges with the body during the third trimester. What evidence can you provide to demonstrate that this merge cannot happen after the fourth trimester? Or during the second trimester? Or that it happens at all?
This is what is reported by people describing their experiences between their death in their last incarnation and their birth into the present one. These reports come from Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls by Michael Newton. Also, it makes sense to me, given my belief in reincarnation (which is supported by a whole host of evidence), that a soul would not join a body until it can have some influence on it, which would seem to require a working brain. Let's be clear here. I am not claiming that I can prove that my views in this matter are true, nor do I have any stake in your believing them. My point in bringing them up is merely to demonstrate that the definition of what constitutes a human being is not and cannot be objective.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Phinehas, re. #81:
Then there can be no equal rights in any sort of objective sense either.
Agreed. As history has shown, when there is sufficient impulse for equal rights within a society, it will manifest. Otherwise people will be treated unequally. History has also shown, by the way, that strong Christian or other religious influence within a society is no guarantee of such an impulse.
Nor are there any grounds for argument if others subjectively decide that you don’t constitute a human being.
Also true. If they have the means to enforce their position, then I am probably in deep doo doo. Otherwise, I will say, "That's interesting," and thank them for sharing.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
BD:
BD: I believe that a soul does not join with a body until the brain is sufficiently developed for the soul to merge with it. This happens sometime during the third trimester. Thus, a human being does not come into existence until that time.
Pav: The latest monstrosity is this: now the left wants to define a “fourth trimester.”
BD: Once again, PaV, your ability to make distinctions is sadly lacking. I know many people who consider themselves liberal. None of them would endorse such a thing.
Yet you've not put forth any non-arbitrary reason under which one could reject a "fourth trimester" abortion. You merely assert that the soul merges with the body during the third trimester. What evidence can you provide to demonstrate that this merge cannot happen after the fourth trimester? Or during the second trimester? Or that it happens at all?Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
BD:
We are not talking about sincerity here. We’re talking about what is objectively true,
I disagree, vehemently as it happens. There is no objective truth regarding what constitutes a human being.
Then there can be no equal rights in any sort of objective sense either. Nor are there any grounds for argument if others subjectively decide that you don't constitute a human being. At that point, vehement disagreement, though entirely appropriate, comes too late.Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply