One of the weaknesses of the creationist argument is the reliance on the bible for total moral direction.
The Bible is full of the agendas of various rule givers down through the ages. These rules may have be relevant to illiterate goat herders but may not have application in this hi-tech age. Take the provision about stoning to death of women for adultery. This is not allowable today; woman will not stand for it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Axil, you asked an ethical question; I have no other means to answer an > ethical question other to appeal to the ethical teachings of the Bible. > Biblical teachings and ethics is the only ethics I consider absolute. > > Yes, you are correct in that assembling DNA one piece at a time is > technically not breeding. But with this procedure, you are violating the > spirit of the commandment, even if you are not violating the letter of the > commandment. > > Let me ask you this. Stealing is defined are someone phycially taking > something belonging to others. If you are not involved in the physical > taking, would it not be stealing? Supposed you used your computer to > transfer funds to your account, that would not be literally stealing, but > is it a violation of the spirit of stealing? > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 10:19 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Transhumanism (Was:The Fallacies of Darwinian > Evolution - Basic Definitions) > > *In the Bible, God does leave specific commandments against interspecies > breeding. A man laying with a beast (cow, goat, etc) is automatically > stoned to death. God has ordained that a species remain within the bounds > of his own species. Hence, it is clear that any attempt to transcend a > species by genetic engineering would be a violation of this directive, > whether a natural process or an artificial process is used.* > > > Going back to the Bible for moral guidance is a stretch. > > > The operative phrase is “Commandments against intersperses breeding”. > Genetic engineering is not sexual breeding. It is a software operation were > sub-elements of genetic code are fabricated from 4 bottles of chemicals, > then these sub-elements are assembled by software into progressively > larger units until the entire genome is built. > > > > How can simple chemistry procedure be a sin? > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> Axil, since you are asking an ethical question that delves into religion >> and the Bible, I will answer an answer from the Bible >> >> In the Bible, God does leave specific commandments against interspecies >> breeding. A man laying with a beast (cow, goat, etc) is automatically >> stoned to death. God has ordained that a species remain within the bounds >> of his own species. Hence, it is clear that any attempt to transcend a >> species by genetic engineering would be a violation of this directive, >> whether a natural process or an artificial process is used. >> >> So, to answer your question clearly and unambigiously, genetic >> engineering is wrong from a Biblical standpoint. It is one thing to >> develop genetic drugs to cure genetic diseases, it is another thing to >> modify the human species into something else thru a manipulation of its DNA. >> >> >> As for your question on whether a "created" human, ie. a clone of some >> kind, would have a soul, I am not sure. But I would tend to believe NO, it >> does not. The Biblical narrative of man's creation by God says that God >> formed man out of the dust of the earth and then breathe into him, and thus >> man became a living soul. Man could possibly form another man via genetic >> engineering but without God breathing into him, he would not be a living >> soul. >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:59 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic >> Definitions >> >> In the context of intelligent design, the interesting question from an >> ethical standpoint is as follows: >> >> If God's plan of creation is embodied in human DNA, is it a sin for man >> to modify it in order to correct flaws in it or to improve the human >> species as a general principle? >> >> Is creation of a new type of human or another species a violation of >> God's plan? If humans are genetically modified to breath the Martian >> atmosphere and to endure the low gravity conditions, are they conceived in >> sin. >> >> Craig Venter creates synthetic life form >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form >> >> Has Craig Venter sinned against the plan of God? >> >> >> Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, >> said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's >> history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying >> life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He >> is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could >> never have existed naturally." >> >> >> This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", >> Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science. >> >> If someone creates a man from scratch, does that created man have a soul? >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Cool!!! Won't be long now until we get a complete catalog of each and >>> every DNA sequence of each and every living plant and animal. When we have >>> this, it would probably is a new dawn in the study of species. No longer >>> will we be dependent on classification based on gross physical >>> characteristics. This new "Genetic" definition of a species will clear up >>> a lot of misunderstandings and I predict will finally discredit this idea >>> of species evolving from another species, ie. Darwinian Evolution. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:04 AM >>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic >>> Definitions >>> >>> JoJo wrote:**** >>> >>> “It won't be long now when we will have the ability to very rapidly and >>> cheaply sequence each and every DNA for all animals and plants.”**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Already here… **** >>> >>> http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/39**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> >> >
<<image001.png>>
