What Scott's petite-brained example failed to call attention to was the fact that there are ways of getting volunteers for medical research, meaning the research will still occur without resorting to stealing people's livers on the street. A more appropriate example would be to ban medical research that used needles, which is absurd.
It's not my job to enter caveats into someone else's thoughtless statement. Let's review that statement.
Quote:
Posted by hardeeharhar
I honestly don't think you should ban any scientific process at all
So as far as hardeeharhar is concerned as long was something is scientific it should be allowed. That's just silly.
"Wednesday 20th October, Professor Roger Pederson, Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, UK with Tim Sebastian
The United Nations is expected to vote this week on whether to outlaw all forms of human cloning. The proposed ban includes therapeutic cloning, which involves the copying of embryos and the harvesting of stem cells from them. The practice of growing embryos for research purposes only is licensed in Britain but is banned in many parts of Europe and heavily restricted in the US. It�s an issue that has entered the American Presidential race, with the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, saying he would lift President Bush�s ban on the funding of new stem cell research, in the hope that millions of Americans with illnesses such as Parkinson�s and Alzheimer�s Diseases could one day be cured with stem cell therapy. Professor Roger Pederson left the US to work in the UK at the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. How far away is the scientific industry from fulfilling such a promise?"
I saw this program on the BBC. If you can find a transcript of it, you will quite clearly see Professor Roger Pederson talk about embryonic stem cells in the context of abiogenesis, although he doesn't use that phrase, his meaning of the implications of embryonic stemcells as key to understanding the origins of life is very clear.
Cloning is going to happen whether you like it or not. Some monkey in a lab in the middle of the ocean will be actively pursuing this. As long as there is money to be made out of cloning, corporations will pursue it.
WHY do Creationists have thousands of books trying to prove that the theory of Evolution is wrong, WHEN it is not even releavent to the issue?
Because many evolutionists do indeed try and use evolution as a universal explanation for the entire history of life, including what I referred to as chemical evolution. Also heavily debated is the misconstrued "micro" vs. "macro" evolution.
2. MarcUK
Quote:
You are relying on the ignorance of the average 'subjects' education and intellectual integrity, to conclude that it is either "evolution" or "Genesis".
.
Well, it is sort of black or white. Either it happened by chance, or it was created. (It can't have always been around, based upon the accepted laws of thermodynamics). When I see the complexity of even the simplest enzyme I see something that looks just as designed as a swiss watch. Except that we can make swiss watches, and we suck at making proteins.
3. Randycat99
Quote:
You say the theory of evolution cannot explain how life began, as if to imply that the scientific community does do this.
.
Ah, but indeed they do. Scroll down to "Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules". Also, look in any biology textbook. Mader's Biology for example, devotes about five pages to it. Also how can you explain why the Miller/Urey experiments are touted so heavily as "proving" evolution?
Now: how does this involve the question this whole thread is about? If you believe in God, (and that he cares at all) you have an obligation to tread very carefully before making any any decisions that might impact life. (be it human or else). If you belive in completely naturalistic methods, then all of your moral judgements are going to based & judged by the society you exist in.
Ah, but indeed they do. Scroll down to "Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules". Also, look in any biology textbook. Mader's Biology for example, devotes about five pages to it. Also how can you explain why the Miller/Urey experiments are touted so heavily as "proving" evolution?
No doubt there may be evolution-type analogies that describe these processes under study, however, it is a semantical leap (some would say deliberate) to then conclude that the classic term Evolution is being used in the scientific community at large as an explanation for the origin of life. They are 2 entirely distinct areas of study, though this does not rule out there may be processes shared or certain conceptual analogies that work nicely. This does not diminish in the least the existing trend where creationist/intelligent design advocates typically attempt to associate those 2 areas of study in an utterly hamfisted manner, and then conclude it cannot be done. Well, duh- the evolution of species was never intended to explain the synthesis of living matter. It would be akin to developing an argument that since the Bible does not address the biological processes of how a sperm and an egg becomes a baby, it must be a work of fiction.
I suppose what it boils down to is a general muddling of the terms. You are right to point out that they are two quite separate fields. However, accusing creationists of being hamfisted is a bit too myopic, as it is naturalists who regularly use "evolution" as the panacea for all development, be it chemical or biological.
The debate should really be about the scope and abilities of evolution, not if it occurs.
No, I accused only those who subscribe to the trend of applying those 2 areas of study in a hamfisted manner (unbeknownst to them), not all creationists. Believe me- they do exist, and they are equally obstinate as they are uninformed of the very scientific concepts they espouse upon with such confidence. I've even found some who would fault evolution for not addressing the formation of the planets in the Solar System. It gets a bit ridiculous, at some point, where if there really is an enlightened strand of persons in the creationist/intelligent design camp, they should tell their lesser informed lackies to SDSTFU, because it only handicaps the credibility of the movement when they open their mouths on the topic (with all due respect to you, of course )
Comments
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What Scott's petite-brained example failed to call attention to was the fact that there are ways of getting volunteers for medical research, meaning the research will still occur without resorting to stealing people's livers on the street. A more appropriate example would be to ban medical research that used needles, which is absurd.
It's not my job to enter caveats into someone else's thoughtless statement. Let's review that statement.
Posted by hardeeharhar
I honestly don't think you should ban any scientific process at all
So as far as hardeeharhar is concerned as long was something is scientific it should be allowed. That's just silly.
"Wednesday 20th October, Professor Roger Pederson, Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, UK with Tim Sebastian
The United Nations is expected to vote this week on whether to outlaw all forms of human cloning. The proposed ban includes therapeutic cloning, which involves the copying of embryos and the harvesting of stem cells from them. The practice of growing embryos for research purposes only is licensed in Britain but is banned in many parts of Europe and heavily restricted in the US. It�s an issue that has entered the American Presidential race, with the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, saying he would lift President Bush�s ban on the funding of new stem cell research, in the hope that millions of Americans with illnesses such as Parkinson�s and Alzheimer�s Diseases could one day be cured with stem cell therapy. Professor Roger Pederson left the US to work in the UK at the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. How far away is the scientific industry from fulfilling such a promise?"
I saw this program on the BBC. If you can find a transcript of it, you will quite clearly see Professor Roger Pederson talk about embryonic stem cells in the context of abiogenesis, although he doesn't use that phrase, his meaning of the implications of embryonic stemcells as key to understanding the origins of life is very clear.
Banning wont work.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Im going to stay away for a week or so. to cool off. Later
Wish granted
1. MarcUK
WHY do Creationists have thousands of books trying to prove that the theory of Evolution is wrong, WHEN it is not even releavent to the issue?
Because many evolutionists do indeed try and use evolution as a universal explanation for the entire history of life, including what I referred to as chemical evolution. Also heavily debated is the misconstrued "micro" vs. "macro" evolution.
2. MarcUK
You are relying on the ignorance of the average 'subjects' education and intellectual integrity, to conclude that it is either "evolution" or "Genesis".
.
Well, it is sort of black or white. Either it happened by chance, or it was created. (It can't have always been around, based upon the accepted laws of thermodynamics). When I see the complexity of even the simplest enzyme I see something that looks just as designed as a swiss watch. Except that we can make swiss watches, and we suck at making proteins.
3. Randycat99
You say the theory of evolution cannot explain how life began, as if to imply that the scientific community does do this.
.
Ah, but indeed they do. Scroll down to "Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules". Also, look in any biology textbook. Mader's Biology for example, devotes about five pages to it. Also how can you explain why the Miller/Urey experiments are touted so heavily as "proving" evolution?
Now: how does this involve the question this whole thread is about? If you believe in God, (and that he cares at all) you have an obligation to tread very carefully before making any any decisions that might impact life. (be it human or else). If you belive in completely naturalistic methods, then all of your moral judgements are going to based & judged by the society you exist in.
Originally posted by benzene
Ah, but indeed they do. Scroll down to "Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules". Also, look in any biology textbook. Mader's Biology for example, devotes about five pages to it. Also how can you explain why the Miller/Urey experiments are touted so heavily as "proving" evolution?
No doubt there may be evolution-type analogies that describe these processes under study, however, it is a semantical leap (some would say deliberate) to then conclude that the classic term Evolution is being used in the scientific community at large as an explanation for the origin of life. They are 2 entirely distinct areas of study, though this does not rule out there may be processes shared or certain conceptual analogies that work nicely. This does not diminish in the least the existing trend where creationist/intelligent design advocates typically attempt to associate those 2 areas of study in an utterly hamfisted manner, and then conclude it cannot be done. Well, duh- the evolution of species was never intended to explain the synthesis of living matter. It would be akin to developing an argument that since the Bible does not address the biological processes of how a sperm and an egg becomes a baby, it must be a work of fiction.
The debate should really be about the scope and abilities of evolution, not if it occurs.