Forcing Evolution

[Galloglasses]

That and we have absolutely no idea what the heck will be the result even if we try.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1502944' date='Apr 18 2008, 08:46 PM']The fact you only use half of a sentence that I wrote, that really makes your argument weak. I don't like being misquoted, as it is something that is actually giving a false witness. It's like you really don't want to make people consider, gene manipulation (meaning there is a manipulator - a sinful human being) is something man does, and isn't a process God put in place in nature. What manipulated the genes before us then? Aliens! I don't see God actually manipulating genes, but actually creating perfect genes from the get go. He does that, because he loves making perfect things, because he is a perfect God![/quote]
Sir, I did not quote only half of a sentence. Please recheck my post. Furthermore, if you had read my previous post, you would know that I too am against genetic manipulation of humans. I was writing simply to ascertain your use of the word. Please take a deep breathe and re-read my posts.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1500871' date='Apr 16 2008, 02:25 PM']do you think it'd be possible to prevent humans with bad genes from being conceive, and not do it in a morally wrong way?[/quote]

Well, first of all, what are "bad genes"?

[quote]if you assume you could determine which sperm and which egg combination conceives, then no people are potentially being exterminated in the name of creating superior offspring. do you think this assumption could be true... eg no trial and error that destroys conceived.[/quote]

The thing is, I think we're more than the sum of our individual qualities. Human dignity is something that cannot be earned; it just [i]is[/i]. Personally, I don't see the point in creating "superior offspring." I don't think human beings should be characterized as such. I may be smarter than someone who is mentally handicapped, but as a person, I'm not superior to him.

[quote]is it inherently immoral to prevent it, even if no conceved are being destroyed?[/quote]

I think so. To me, it seems like an affront against human dignity to assume that some people are inherently superior to others merely because they have more desirable traits.

[quote]it'd seem at least theoretically possible, and the human race then could become say super smart.[/quote]

Honestly, I don't think it'd be too feasible. Human DNA is incredibly complex, and there's always a chance that something will go wrong after conception. We're influenced by our genes, but environmental and psychological factors also play a part in our overall makeup. There are just too many variables that we'd never be able to fully control.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1503114' date='Apr 18 2008, 11:01 PM']Sir, I did not quote only half of a sentence. Please recheck my post. Furthermore, if you had read my previous post, you would know that I too am against genetic manipulation of humans. I was writing simply to ascertain your use of the word. Please take a deep breathe and re-read my posts.[/quote]

Since all sentences in a paragraph convey the whole thought, you forgot to put in - Such things are only available because sinful man wants to make something better than what God already created.

That is the whole point of my post. God doesn't change genes on the molecular level, only human beings do.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1503593' date='Apr 19 2008, 08:06 PM']Since all sentences in a paragraph convey the whole thought, you forgot to put in - Such things are only available because sinful man wants to make something better than what God already created.

That is the whole point of my post. God doesn't change genes on the molecular level, only human beings do.[/quote]
If changes to genes do not happen at the "molecular level," then what is the cause of a genetic mutation? Again, how are you using the word "natural?"

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree humans have inherent dignity beyond plants.
i think we could manipulate genes of monkeys etc and determine a way that would minimize bad consequences should we do it to humans.
if it's gonna cause bad consequenes, i'm generally against it. really i'm just talking theoretically, if we knew no bad consequences, then what? you cna't say bad consequences when my qhole premise has addressed that.

i can see if you think some people are dumber and that's just eh way it is... etc. but, at least for preventing diseases and such, isn't that something that we should change? the world is not perfect right now, i don't think anyone can disagree with that. innocent people are born suffering etc. whatever the reason for it, sin etc, it's still not perfect and we can be cocreators to prevent it.
i can understand hte smart and elite stuff just leave it alone, but not wanting to rid the world of suffering through this, if it's started with monkeys and slowly tried out in humans, i don't think is wise. it's in fact, unchristian.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1504374' date='Apr 20 2008, 04:07 PM']i can see if you think some people are dumber and that's just eh way it is... etc. but, at least for preventing diseases and such, isn't that something that we should change? the world is not perfect right now, i don't think anyone can disagree with that. innocent people are born suffering etc. whatever the reason for it, sin etc, it's still not perfect and we can be cocreators to prevent it.
i can understand hte smart and elite stuff just leave it alone, but not wanting to rid the world of suffering through this, if it's started with monkeys and slowly tried out in humans, i don't think is wise. it's in fact, unchristian.[/quote]
This may sound terribly callous, but your argument presumes that suffering is bad and ought to be minimized, if not eliminated all together. While I would in no wise promote causing the active suffering of others, suffering may be redemptive and to the betterment of the individual. No pearl is gained without irritation.

[quote]if we knew no bad consequences, then what? you cna't say bad consequences when my qhole premise has addressed that.[/quote]
Also, what do you mean by "bad consequences?" Are speaking on a physilogical level alone, or also on a social, psychological, or spiritual level?

Edited April 20, 2008 by Paphnutius

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought bad consequences was defined sufficiently. if it's causing malformed people then that's bad. htings like that. it doesn't have to be a super defined term. i said i could understand the smart v dumb distinction, and if changing that is deemed bad, then sure, whatever.
sure there's probably some things where "bad consequnces" needs defined more. but, the situation has not posed itself that this needs elaborated more, yet. so there's not much to define here so i'm not sure why you ask.

yes, it's terribly callous to not want to rid the world of suffering that comes from being born crippled, if there's no bad consequences to preventing the crippling.
if you're assuming there'd be bad consequencdes, then it's not that terribly callous. i'd call it callosu though if you wouldn't allow a very very small amount of bad consquenes for a large amount of preventing inborn disease.

maybe you know something that's a poentia "bad consequence" that needs discuseed... if that's the case, then bring it up.

Edited April 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1504241' date='Apr 20 2008, 01:34 PM']If changes to genes do not happen at the "molecular level," then what is the cause of a genetic mutation? Again, how are you using the word "natural?"[/quote]

Paphnutius, there are small changes in genes, which God used to make certain characteristics appear in our gene pool.

The difference between white skin, and black skin, for instance, is the result of one atom difference in the genetic code of a human being.

But such things don't happen very often, and are the result of a God who cares about us to give black skin to people in Africa to prevent as much skin cancer as possible.

Since God is outside of our world, then anything he does is supernatural. The differences between the races of all animals is caused by God. He didn't cause evolution that all life has a single ancestor.

Therefore, in nature, nothing is changed on the genetic level, except by outside influence. Currently, with the amount of chemicals we are producing in our atmosphere, we are changing our genetic makeup, pretty much in the negative - i.e. more people with Asthma, more people with genetic diseases, ect, ect, ect.

So here's the definitions -

Natural - something regulated by the processes that God sent in motion.
Unnatural - taking control of processes God made, and altering them. That of course will declare that any gene manipulation is against God's will, and if it's against God's will, its sin, and anybody debating this because of the potential 'benefits' are really rebelling against God, and they should be bowing themselves down for God for forgiveness.

Because, after all, after God had created everything, he called it very good. Does anybody here want to be the one saying, I thought we could make things better, and Jesus say - how much better, when I created everything, I said it was very good!

Edited April 21, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[dairygirl4u2c]

most people say that the bad stuff that happens is largely a result of sin. when God created everything, he said it was good.... but that was before the fall. that was before sin. i don't think i'd say what he made was bad, but there's bad things happening, however you want to describe it.

it's almost like saying you don't want to make medicine because naturally we die anyway. i do realize changing genes is different, but it's similiar enough in my opinion to make the point.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1504703' date='Apr 20 2008, 09:15 PM']Since God is outside of our world, then anything he does is supernatural. The differences between the races of all animals is caused by God. He didn't cause evolution that all life has a single ancestor.[/quote]I would say that God is also immanent to creation. He is both transcendent and immanent.

[quote]Natural - something regulated by the processes that God sent in motion.
Unnatural - taking control of processes God made, and altering them. That of course will declare that any gene manipulation is against God's will, and if it's against God's will, its sin, and anybody debating this because of the potential 'benefits' are really rebelling against God, and they should be bowing themselves down for God for forgiveness.[/quote]Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that there is a dichotomy between human actions and what is natural? Is it not possible to say that human actions and free will are a part of the "processes that God sent in motion?"

[quote]yes, it's terribly callous to not want to rid the world of suffering that comes from being born crippled, if there's no bad consequences to preventing the crippling.
if you're assuming there'd be bad consequencdes, then it's not that terribly callous. i'd call it callosu though if you wouldn't allow a very very small amount of bad consquenes for a large amount of preventing inborn disease.

maybe you know something that's a poentia "bad consequence" that needs discuseed... if that's the case, then bring it up.[/quote]I asked for a more precise definition because one of the bad consequences could be losing sight of our humanity and dependence upon God. This is not necessarily physiological, so I sought clarification. Perhaps, however, it would be easier to start with a question: Why do you think that suffering ought to be eliminated?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1503142' date='Apr 19 2008, 05:43 AM']Well, first of all, what are "bad genes"?[/quote]
And if these so-called "bad genes" can be isolated & eliminated, how would it affect other genes?
[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1503142' date='Apr 19 2008, 05:43 AM']The thing is, I think we're more than the sum of our individual qualities. Human dignity is something that cannot be earned; it just [i]is[/i]. Personally, I don't see the point in creating "superior offspring." I don't think human beings should be characterized as such. I may be smarter than someone who is mentally handicapped, but as a person, I'm not superior to him.
I think so. To me, it seems like an affront against human dignity to assume that some people are inherently superior to others merely because they have more desirable traits.[/quote]
My first thought here was of Khan (I watch too much Star Trek ). But then my serious thought was of my cousin's cousin, Stef. She is the oldest living person with Hurler's syndrome, and she's only alive because she had a bone marrow transplant early on. While I may have a higher IQ than she does, I can't imagine the world without her irrepressible spirit. I am in no way superior to her. In fact, I'm often reminded to have more trust & faith, and to help others without question. I think the world would be a bleaker place without such people.

[praying4carmel]

[quote name='Galloglasses' date='Apr 16 2008, 04:14 PM' post='1500931'

Eugenics.

The master race theory, courtesy of the Nazis.

[/quote]

Actually Hitler got his ideas from the Good Old USA..a shock to many..

[url="http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/B000TFWG5I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208808132&sr=8-1"]War against the weak[/url]

I thought this book would take off when it was published. Obviously since it's in the remainder bin it Didn't which is too bad.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1505744' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:05 PM']Actually Hitler got his ideas from the Good Old USA..a shock to many..

[url="http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/B000TFWG5I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208808132&sr=8-1"]War against the weak[/url]

I thought this book would take off when it was published. Obviously since it's in the remainder bin it Didn't which is too bad.[/quote]
I hadn't heard of that book, though I did know about the eugenics movement in the US. Quite sad.

[Galloglasses]

Why hasn't Planned Parenthood's damning links to Nazi Eugenics not made international conscience yet?