Mark Tapscott has what he thinks are the five best ones. I find none of them particularly compelling, and the third one is very weak.
As I note in comments (the discussion has been going on for a couple weeks), science is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not God exists, and (as I argued with Hugh Hewitt years ago) the desire of believers to misuse/misunderstand the nature of science to validate their religious beliefs is indicative of a certain lack of faith. And of course, the fallacy of the blind watchmaker appears, in which I have to point out that rolexes don’t replicate with random errors to improve the breed.
No, this isn’t about the upper stage. Glad someone is asking the important questions:
Serious question for #medtwitter: If you show up at a code, and the patient is a centaur who had a cardiac arrest, ignoring the joules question, where do you think the defib pads should go? A, assuming the heart is in the human part, or B, assuming the heart is in the horse part? pic.twitter.com/OJt9haEgx3
…with gene therapy. At some point, some of these things are going to help humans. Faster, please.
[Monday-morning update]
More from Brian Wang on not just life extension, but age-reversal. Human trials to start in maybe a couple years. But as previously noted, starting with dogs is a useful way to get around the FDA.
at Amazon.