How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood

[ambush80]

Most people would probably say it's disingenuous to try to pass off a shovel full of dirt as a skyscraper or an egg as a chicken. We have the different terminology because there are distinctions to be made between things with vastly different properties.

Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human. Is that patently false?

 

[ambush80]

Show me where, besides when I make subjective claims like "something is disingenuous", I have made a claim that's patently false. If your reasons are good I will helplessly believe.

 

[atlashunter]

In that girls case I agree, but I can imagine a truly horrific and tragic situation where if my 10 year old daughter asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it. That was weird to me. That people would let someone suffer in the face of certain death so as not to "play god". That seemed so obviously immoral.



If you believe that being a human depends on a list of certain criteria like feeling pain, mental states, sentience... then a person may be so mentally retarded (under developed) that they may check off those boxes. There's also a spectrum of those criteria that you'll have to acknowledge.

Anencephaly would check off the boxes for me but I find these arguments to largely be a red herring. There are very few births in which the sentience would be comparable to that of a zygote that wouldn't be still births.

 

[WaltL1]

In that girls case I agree, but I can imagine a truly horrific and tragic situation where if my 10 year old daughter asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it. That was weird to me. That people would let someone suffer in the face of certain death so as not to "play god". That seemed so obviously immoral.



If you believe that being a human depends on a list of certain criteria like feeling pain, mental states, sentience... then a person may be so mentally retarded (under developed) that they may check off those boxes. There's also a spectrum of those criteria that you'll have to acknowledge.

asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it.

Since you are being technical, that's technically not suicide. Maybe "mercy killing" would be more accurate?
And point taken as to your 2nd paragraph.
I gotta think about it. Off the top of my head, I think its going to lead me to hypocrisy in my thinking. But maybe not.

 

[ambush80]

Anencephaly would check off the boxes for me but I find these arguments to largely be a red herring. There are very few births in which the sentience would be comparable to that of a zygote that wouldn't be still births.

Determining sentience is pretty subjective.

 

[ambush80]

Since you are being technical, that's technically not suicide. Maybe "mercy killing" would be more accurate?
And point taken as to your 2nd paragraph.
I gotta think about it. Off the top of my head, I think its going to lead me to hypocrisy in my thinking. But maybe not.

In the PF thread I qualified that I was in a state where I couldn't kill myself and wanted help. If my girl was capable physically to say, shoot herself, I still wouldn't make her do it herself. The discussion was strangely revealing about people's different standards of what's compassionate and moral. I'm sure there were many people on my side that didn't want to say so.

You reason pretty well. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it make sense.

 

[atlashunter]

Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human. Is that patently false?

Depends on what you mean by human. I already made this distinction earlier between "human" ie of human origin and "a human" ie a human being. A human hair is human but it's not a human. A zygote is human life. So is every living cell in the human body. To become a distinct human being takes much more development.

The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes just like the definition of a skyscraper doesn't include a shovel full of dirt. And if you modify the definition to include zygotes then you've just blurred the distinctions between man, woman, child and zygote. I realize some would like to do that and I understand why but it seems to me a more honest approach would be for them to acknowledge all the aspects of being human that are absent in a zygote and make their case with that in mind. I realize where you stand but I think you've pushed your definitions beyond the point of credibility. When you're trying to make the case that eggs are chickens and bits of dirt are skyscrapers I'm sorry but I just can't take that argument seriously. Regardless of what you call them the fact of the matter remains they are very different things. There is no getting around that.

 

[atlashunter]

Determining sentience is pretty subjective.

Well if you can show that sentience is possible without a brain I'd love to see it. Seems pretty objective to me.

 

[WaltL1]

In the PF thread I qualified that I was in a state where I couldn't kill myself and wanted help. If my girl was capable physically to say shoot herself, I still wouldn't make her do it herself. The discussion was strangely revealing about people's different standards of what's compassionate and moral. I'm sure there were many people on my side that didn't want to say so.

You reason pretty well. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it make sense.

I still wouldn't make her do it herself.

Admittedly I cant know of any ulterior motives you may have floating around in your head, but I can almost see it as an "ultimate act of love".

 

[atlashunter]

Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human. Is that patently false?

Infants, toddlers, old men, and fingernails are all human. But only three of those are human beings. Only three have human bodies with human brains. Only three have the functionality of human beings. A zygote also lacks a human body, a human brain, or any other human organ. It has the same level of sentience as the fingernail. If you don't have a human body or a human brain then you're not a human being.

 

[ambush80]

Depends on what you mean by human. I already made this distinction earlier between "human" ie of human origin and "a human" ie a human being. A human hair is human but it's not a human. A zygote is human life. So is every living cell in the human body. To become a distinct human being takes much more development.

The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes just like the definition of a skyscraper doesn't include a shovel full of dirt. And if you modify the definition to include zygotes then you've just blurred the distinctions between man, woman, child and zygote. I realize some would like to do that and I understand why but it seems to me a more honest approach would be for them to acknowledge all the aspects of being human that are absent in a zygote and make their case with that in mind. I realize where you stand but I think you've pushed your definitions beyond the point of credibility. When you're trying to make the case that eggs are chickens and bits of dirt are skyscrapers I'm sorry but I just can't take that argument seriously. Regardless of what you call them the fact of the matter remains they are very different things. There is no getting around that.

That's an odd statement. They're alive human cells but only one kind will grow and live develop into a full organism. That's a distinction that requires a different categorization.

"The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes"

Which definition? I showed a definition of human that said people born without thumbs aren't human.

 

[ambush80]

Infants, toddlers, old men, and fingernails are all human. But only three of those are human beings. Only three have human bodies with human brains. Only three have the functionality of human beings. A zygote also lacks a human body, a human brain, or any other human organ. It has the same level of sentience as the fingernail. If you don't have a human body or a human brain then you're not a human being.

That's progress. You're making the list I've been asking to see. Can you give me your full list?

 

[atlashunter]

That's an odd statement. They're alive human cells but only one kind will grow and live develop into a full organism. That's a distinction that requires a different categorization.

"The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes"

Which definition? I showed a definition of human that said people born without thumbs aren't human.

The definition that I looked up and gave.

"will grow and develop" That tells me what it could become. Not what it is. Two very different things.

Does a cell that could become a baby deserve distinction from one that couldn't? Sure. We call that distinction a zygote. But it's still just a cell or group of dividing cells at that point.

When a baby is born, that's a human being. When an egg is fertilized, it's a cell that could become a baby.

There's a joke that goes "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and living room? No? Then don't come to my house." Well if you don't know the difference between a fertilized egg and a baby....

 

[atlashunter]

That's progress. You're making the list I've been asking to see. Can you give me your full list?

That's nothing that hasn't already been said. I already answered this before. No, there is no list. At birth a healthy baby is a human being. At conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, certainly not in form or function. The development of that form and function is a gradual process. What you're asking is like saying when exactly does one species become a different species? At which generation was the first human? Doesn't work that way because every generation between us and our non human ancestors was transitional. Small steps that accumulated over time to arrive at much larger changes. I know you don't find that answer satisfying but that's just the biological reality.

 

[bullethead]

When would you start calling a fertilized egg a human, Bullet? And why?

My opinion would be with heartbeat and brain function. Week 10-12. Right around when embryo turns to fetus and the essential organs have begun to form.
At 13 weeks miscarriage chances decrease. 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest a premature baby has survived birth.
So, because of both Heartbeat and Brain Function. 10 to 12 weeks.

 

[ambush80]

Well if you can show that sentience is possible without a brain I'd love to see it. Seems pretty objective to me.

Neurology doesn't have an answer to that either. Mostly because sentience is subjective. They disagree on at what point neural activity constitutes thought. Neurologists and philosophers usually concentrate on consciousness, which they can't pin down either. Have you ever heard of the term Panpsychism?

 

[ambush80]

The definition that I looked up and gave. "will grow and develop" That tells me what it could become. Not what it is. Two very different things.

The one that supports what you believe. The one you prefer. That's fine. That's what most people do. I'm proposing that defining something as human is like defining when is something in the visible light spectrum (to use the analogy you presented which I think is valid).

Does a cell that could become a baby deserve distinction from one that couldn't? Sure. We call that distinction a zygote. But it's still just a cell or group of dividing cells at that point.

When a baby is born, that's a human being. When an egg is fertilized, it's a cell that could become a baby.

Another one to add to the list. Natural birth? Cesarean? Premature? I would like to see as much of the list as you can provide.

There's a joke that goes "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and living room? No? Then don't come to my house." Well if you don't know the difference between a fertilized egg and a baby....

I don't understand the analogy.

 

[ambush80]

My opinion would be with heartbeat and brain function. Week 10-12. Right around when embryo turns to fetus and the essential organs have begun to form.
At 13 weeks miscarriage chances decrease. 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest a premature baby has survived birth.
So, because of both Heartbeat and Brain Function. 10 to 12 weeks.

Some neurologists say that "brain function" starts with the first neural cells.

I appreciate that you can pin it down to your satisfaction. Would you agree or disagree that the term "brain function" is subjective

If we are able to gestate a zygote to full term exutero would that change your definitions?

 

[bullethead]

Quickening stage for me
http://www.brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

 

[ambush80]

That's nothing that hasn't already been said. I already answered this before. No, there is no list. At birth a healthy baby is a human being.

There's a partial list.

At conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, certainly not in form or function. The development of that form and function is a gradual process.

Does that mean you don't know exactly when it's a human?

What you're asking is like saying when exactly does one species become a different species? At which generation was the first human? Doesn't work that way because every generation between us and our non human ancestors was transitional. Small steps that accumulated over time to arrive at much larger changes. I know you don't find that answer satisfying but that's just the biological reality.

This analogy is just like the white to grey to black analogy. Until the wavelngth is in the visible spectrum, those terms are meaningless. At some point our huuman ancestor was a protozoa. At another point in the future our descendants may no longer exhibit the criteria you use to classify them as Human (Homonid, Sapien), they may not even fall into a classification like Mammalian.