J
josie_L
Guest
Excuse me, but have you the proof that it’s fact? And I’m going out on a limb here but I’ll make the assumption that you don’t have a time travel machine.
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
And the reasons behind the restrictions have nothing to do with the dangers associated with ESCR? And by relevant research do you mean SCNT?
J
josie_L
Guest
I love how some atheists come here and state that things are fact just because they say so.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
seriously though … a distinction needs to be made between therapeutic cloning & using already fertilized eggs to produce stem cells. In therapeutic cloning they take an embryo, strip its nucleus, insert a cell nucleus from the patient body (it can be from any cell), and electrically (or chemically) stimulate it to produce an embryo. That embryo would then be the genetic twin of the patient & would become the source of stem cells for potential therapeutic uses. This procedure cannot produce life; however, I’m pretty sure the RCC still opposes it.
This would be the likely course if ESC’s were ever found to be efficacious for medical treatments (since it would overcome the problem of donor rejection). However, getting from where we are now to the point where we learn whether or not this stuff can work requires research – and that research has thus far been shut down (until recently that is).
The most effective means of research is traditional ESCR (using already fertilized embryos stored in a frozen state in fertilization clinics, which would otherwise be discarded since the donor females have already accomplished their goal of becoming pregnant).
The idea that ESCR (and therapeutic cloning) will not be effective is nothing more than conjecture (without any sound scientific basis). Indeed the fact that adult stem cells are showing potential only serves to validate further ESCR since embryonic stem cells are thought to be of higher quality than ASC’s.
IMO the CC is creating a false victim. These are blobs of cells that will never otherwise become life. They don’t think, they can’t speak, and frankly they have no more essence than a banana for goodness sake. However, this is what the church does isn’t it? It’s always hated science & it continues down the same path of obstructing human progress that its been going down for centuries. In the past it was any theory that sought to debunk geocentrism, now it’s ESCR. The church has always maintained a small cadre of scientists (only a small handful of which ever produced anything of even nominal value) so it can turn around and say – see we do support science. Yet what it really wants to do is control science (which really equates to obstructing science of real value); while of course the idea that theologians should be allowed any influence over science whatsoever is logically absurd.
Oh well … thankfully it doesn’t wield any real power these days.
This would be the likely course if ESC’s were ever found to be efficacious for medical treatments (since it would overcome the problem of donor rejection). However, getting from where we are now to the point where we learn whether or not this stuff can work requires research – and that research has thus far been shut down (until recently that is).
The most effective means of research is traditional ESCR (using already fertilized embryos stored in a frozen state in fertilization clinics, which would otherwise be discarded since the donor females have already accomplished their goal of becoming pregnant).
The idea that ESCR (and therapeutic cloning) will not be effective is nothing more than conjecture (without any sound scientific basis). Indeed the fact that adult stem cells are showing potential only serves to validate further ESCR since embryonic stem cells are thought to be of higher quality than ASC’s.
IMO the CC is creating a false victim. These are blobs of cells that will never otherwise become life. They don’t think, they can’t speak, and frankly they have no more essence than a banana for goodness sake. However, this is what the church does isn’t it? It’s always hated science & it continues down the same path of obstructing human progress that its been going down for centuries. In the past it was any theory that sought to debunk geocentrism, now it’s ESCR. The church has always maintained a small cadre of scientists (only a small handful of which ever produced anything of even nominal value) so it can turn around and say – see we do support science. Yet what it really wants to do is control science (which really equates to obstructing science of real value); while of course the idea that theologians should be allowed any influence over science whatsoever is logically absurd.
Oh well … thankfully it doesn’t wield any real power these days.
J
josie_L
Guest
And how many times do I have to tell you that SCNT is the deliberate creation of an embryo for the purpose of killing it all in the name of medical “science”.
J
josie_L
Guest
But as a “god” you still need to provide proof, remember.that’s because we’re our own god remember
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
you’re setting up a false dilemma IMO. A SCNT is not a fertilized embryo, it only produces an embryo that in turn produces stem cells. There are many more steps required for reproductive cloning (therefore the result of SCNT is not a life or even a potential life).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
you’re asking for proof? This is well documented science, far more proof than claims of ancient men splitting oceans with the assistance of a god whom we’ve never had the pleasure of meeting & whose only medium of communication with mankind has been copies upon copies of manuscripts that we can’t even find an objective way of understanding in a consistent way (and that btw are attenuated by centuries from the events it alleges occurred)But as a “god” you still need to provide proof, remember.
J
josie_L
Guest
There is too much I disagree with here, and so I’ll limit what I have to say; even if I were an atheist I would be against this procedure because it violates human life (and biology has proven that life starts at conception). And make no mistake there are Atheists who are pro-life.seriously though … a distinction needs to be made between therapeutic cloning & using already fertilized eggs to produce stem cells. In therapeutic cloning they take an embryo, strip its nucleus, insert a cell nucleus from the patient body (it can be from any cell), and electrically (or chemically) stimulate it to produce an embryo. That embryo would then be the genetic twin of the patient & would become the source of stem cells for potential therapeutic uses. This procedure cannot produce life; however, I’m pretty sure the RCC still opposes it.
This would be the likely course if ESC’s were ever found to be efficacious for medical treatments (since it would overcome the problem of donor rejection). However, getting from where we are now to the point where we learn whether or not this stuff can work requires research – and that research has thus far been shut down (until recently that is).
The most effective means of research is traditional ESCR (using already fertilized embryos stored in a frozen state in fertilization clinics, which would otherwise be discarded since the donor females have already accomplished their goal of becoming pregnant).
The idea that ESCR (and therapeutic cloning) will not be effective is nothing more than conjecture (without any sound scientific basis). Indeed the fact that adult stem cells are showing potential only serves to validate further ESCR since embryonic stem cells are thought to be of higher quality than ASC’s.
IMO the CC is creating a false victim. These are blobs of cells that will never otherwise become life. They don’t think, they can’t speak, and frankly they have no more essence than a banana for goodness sake. However, this is what the church does isn’t it? It’s always hated science & it continues down the same path of obstructing human progress that its been going down for centuries. In the past it was any theory that sought to debunk geocentrism, now it’s ESCR. The church has always maintained a small cadre of scientists (only a small handful of which ever produced anything of even nominal value) so it can turn around and say – see we do support science. Yet what it really wants to do is control science (which really equates to obstructing science of real value); while of course the idea that theologians should be allowed any influence over science whatsoever is logically absurd.
Oh well … thankfully it doesn’t wield any real power these days.
P.S. Science should not dictate what is and isn’t moral since it’s not their area of expertise, as such the Church has every right to intervene when it sees Science acting unethically. And you know what Francis I’m more determined than ever to study the history of Science and see how many skeletons are hiding in the closet (I wonder what I’ll find). I’ll make sure to post it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
please cite the study where biologists have allegedly proven life begins at conception. As far as there being atheists who are pro-life … I don’t see the logical relevance to this discussion?
J
josie_L
Guest
There are historical documents that a man in the 1st century named Jesus lived (I do not need to provide proof of every miracle worked in the Bible). Can you provide proof to the contrary?you’re asking for proof? This is well documented science, far more proof than claims of ancient men splitting oceans with the assistance of a god whom we’ve never had the pleasure of meeting & whose only medium of communication with mankind has been copies upon copies of manuscripts that we can’t even find an objective way of understanding in a consistent way (and that btw are attenuated by centuries from the events it alleges occurred)
J
josie_L
Guest
Because this is not just a theological/moral issue, it’s a biological/moral one too, hence the reference to pro-life Atheists. And I don’t have to cite anything, biologically life starts at conception.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
that’s absurd reasoning … and you’re dodging my previous question (regarding your bizarre claim that biologists have proven life begins at conception) by tossing me a red herring?
Sure Josephus did name Jesus (albeit we don’t have any original writings from Josephus, so his alleged claims are dubious). However, even assuming the veracity of Josephus; for all we know Jesus was some guy like David Koresh (and the entire New Testament is a collection of invented fables). Can you prove my theory wrong?
J
josie_L
Guest
But you can’t prove my theory wrong either? Hence, my reason for stating to that other atheist to provide “proof”. And you don’t have proof only assumptions based on your belief that God doesn’t exist.
P.S. There are others apart from Josephus who wrote about Jesus. Pliny the Younger and Tacitus come to mind. Do we have any historical documentation for the greek gods outside of the stories told?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
of course you don’t have to cite anything … because there’s nothing to cite, which of course means you invented the claim that biologists have proven life begins at conception. Wow … think I’m gonna go get some grub and chill this discussion out for a while?
J
josie_L
Guest
And I’ll get some aspirin for the headache I have (dealing with atheists).
.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Tacitus and Pliny the Younger didn’t write about Jesus, they wrote about early Christians who believed in Jesus. Frankly the same is true of Josephus. None of these historians ever claimed to meet Jesus or witness any miracles. They merely recorded accounts of early Christians (honestly I’ve never disputed that Christianity has been around for a while … so I don’t find much value in these accounts from a logical perspective).
J
josie_L
Guest
There cannot be CHRISTians without a Christ, and furthermore there are more than these two sources I cited. Also, do you believe Alexander the Great existed?
- Status