CLoNiNG

[Gordon Gekko]

well, someone had to start this thread.... cloning is all over the news.

this pisses me off:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=n...u=/ap/20021228/ap_on_he_me/cloning_world_reax

these churches should shut the hell up (actually, they're free to voice their opinion, but they shouldn't be considered the defining opinion). religion is nothing but a hindrance to science...and the pope is damn fool. he thinks he's going to heaven when he dies. that's funny! he's going nowhere. if the bible is true, why would god let his biggest supporter turn into an old, frail, dying, bumbling, moron? it's because the whole thing is a total farce.

anyway, i'm not really against cloning. it doesn't matter anyway because no matter what rules are passed, they won't stop science..so i'm not the least bit worried.

i usually like fox news, but they're really annoying me on the cloning issue. brenda butner is usually ok, too, but she seemed so pig headed when she interviewed the guy who helped start cloneaid. she was all upset that embryos are thrown away, yet when it was pointed out that mothers can legally abort 3 month old babies for any reason, she didn't want to get into that. yeah, you don't want to get into that because it's a great point.

abortion is a tough issue, but i would say it's ok if done VERY soon after conception... i'm talking like within a week. with exceptions made in the case of rape, or to save the life of the mother, etc. now i know life may very well begin at conception, but get real....we humans don't care too much about microscopic things and that's a fact. if you looked at a just conceived embryo under a microscope, you probably couldn't tell the difference between that and an amoeba.

i say this and i'm nice to animals and i very rarely kill bugs if i can help it. i also don't eat meat. these same people that cry over microscopic embryos don't mind a cow being killed so they can eat it... or stepping on an ant in their house....or how about washing your hands? you're killing microscopic things right there. your own body kills things. death is part of life. i'm not saying a human is the same as an ant, but really, why are we more important than any other living thing just because we're more evolved? and yes, we evolved..that's a fact.

all you people that think we're better than everything is probably because of the bible and the beliefs you were raised by. the bible makes it seem like everything is here FOR US. what a joke. just like the sun revolves around the earth, right? we're so important..everything is made just for us. that couldn't be farther from the truth. everything existed and we FIT to the planet. we evolved TO IT.

anyway, i'm done blabbering, for now..i'm 100% for genetic engineering. in the future, we will have sex only for enjoyment. people WILL be conceived the way their parents want them. if you want your kid to have blue eyes, you'll have it. that is the way things are going to be and i know it.

for the record, i didn't fully get into all my opinions on this matter.. also, i may sound like a liberal, but i'm not. i'm actually conservative, but not on social issues. i'm also not saying there shouldn't be limitations to cloning; there should be...i'm just saying it shouldn't be outlawed.

 

[bobcathy1]

This subject of cloning sure captures the imagination. Your post is very interesting for sure. But like all science, there is a good and a bad side to it. Depends who exploits it.

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from Gordon Gekko:


these churches should shut the hell up. religion is nothing but a hindrance to science...and the pope is damn fool. he thinks he's going to heaven when he dies. that's funny! he's going nowhere.

While I understand that you are not religious, calling the pope a "fool" is a bit extreme. The man speaks eight languages fluently and has traveled to more places in his life than most people will ever visit in their lifetime. The Pope's life is actually very interesting and the current Pope, although he won't be around for much longer in my opinion, is a very remarkable man worth studying.

anyway, i'm not really against cloning. it doesn't matter anyway because no matter what rules are passed, they won't stop science..so i'm not the least bit worried.

i usually like fox news, but they're really annoying me on the cloning issue. brenda butner is usually ok, too, but she seemed like a total fool when she interviewed the guy who helped start cloneaid. she was all upset that embryos are thrown away, yet when it was pointed out that mothers can legally abort 3 month old babies for any reason, she didn't want to get into that. yeah, you don't want to get into that because it was a great point.

Cloning humans is a scary thing, regardless of your stand on religion. Even from a scientific standpoint, cloning still has a host of problems. I doubt any human has been cloned, but the fact that this group is rubbing it into the world community's face and calling the baby "eve" is just asking for trouble and is a sad attempt at attention-getting.

abortion is a tough issue, but i would say it's ok if done VERY soon after conception... i'm talking like within a week. with exceptions made in the case of rape, or to save the life of the mother, etc. now i know life may very well begin at conception, but get real....we humans don't care too much about microscopic things and that's a fact. if you looked at a just conceived embryo under a microscope, you probably couldn't tell the difference between that and an amoeba.

The Zygote rapidly turns into a recognizable humanoid in just a few weeks under a microscope. Is it the "well if it looks like a baby than I feel worse about it" syndrome? I am pro-choice also, but there are too many abortions for all the wrong reasons and they are too frequent in our society.

i say this and i'm nice to animals and i very rarely kill bugs if i can help it. i also don't eat meat. these same people that cry over microscopic embryos don't mind a cow being killed so they can eat it... or stepping on an ant in their house....or how about washing your hands? you're killing microscopic things right there. your own body kills things. death is part of life. i'm not saying a human is the same as an ant, but really, why are we more important than any other living thing just because we're more evolved? and yes, we evolved..that's a fact.

I think the difference here is that, when you wash your hands, you are doing it to maintain your health. Abortions can very rarely be attributed to health reasons for the mother. Otherwise, we perform experiments on animals from mice up to monkeys every day to help advance our own medical knowledge. In fact, not too long ago, it was common for the cosmetic industry to test chemicals on animals just to make sure they were safe for humans. There are videos available of rabbits screaming in pain as they are blinded from acid just to test certain configurations.

all you people that think we're better than everything is probably because of the bible and the beliefs you were raised by. the bible makes it seem like everything is here FOR US. what a joke. just like the sun revolves the earth, right? we're so important..everything is made just for us. that couldn't be farther from the truth. everything existed and we FIT to the planet. we evolved TO IT.

However, it doesn't change the fact that we ARE here and the universe got here somehow -- have you ever stopped to consider the most basic question, "why is there something instead of nothing?

anyway, i'm done blabbering, for now..i'm 100% for genetic engineering. in the future, we will have sex only for enjoyment. people WILL be conceived the way their parents want them. if you want your kid to have blue eyes, you'll have it. that is the way things are going to be and i know it.

Why stop there? Why not create virtual "Babys R Us" labs where parents can pay extra money to increase their child's IQ, good looks, sports abilities, etc? Perhaps we can catalog every gene and make it so the rich and elite can spawn the most gifted children while the poorer people will have to contend with the simple laws of nature and hope their kids genes are good enough to compete with these new super babies? If you want to be a pure evolutionist, than just admit that humans are merely a biological stepping-stone for the eventual age of quantum silicon super-intellegence.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean that it isn't a possibility. Remember, you're risking a lifetime of mortal hedonism for an eternity of discontent if you are wrong -- that's a pretty big gamble in my book. I have found in my own life that people who lash out against religion strongly are usually not fully aware of religion's benefits.

You stated that religion has been a hindrance to science, but in my opinion, religion has actually benefited science.

 

[LongShot]

>>Why stop there? Why not create virtual "Babys R Us" labs where parents can pay extra money to increase their child's IQ, good looks, sports abilities, etc? Perhaps we can catalog every gene and make it so the rich and elite can spawn the most gifted children while the poorer people will have to contend with the simple laws of nature and hope their kids genes are good enough to compete with these new super babies? If you want to be a pure evolutionist, than just admit that humans are merely a biological stepping-stone for the eventual age of quantum silicon super-intellegence.

I don't have a problem with this, i think it an improvement.

As for your religious inclinations, pick a religion, any one, you've got THOUSANDS to choose from. Which one makes you FEEL the best, that's the "right" one for you

Is this the work of a creator? Who, then, created the "creator"? And who created the creator's creator? Why not just conclude "something" from "nothing"? Much simpler. Occam's Razor and all that.

BTW, the christian's Gpd did not say generate a cost/benefit analysis, and then get back to me as to your beliefs. HE DEMANDS UNCONDITIONAL BELIEF OR ELSE YOU ARE SCREWED FOREVER.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Quote from aphexcoil:

While I understand that you are not religious, calling the pope a "fool" is a bit extreme. The man speaks eight languages fluently and has traveled to more places in his life than most people will ever visit in their lifetime. The Pope's life is actually very interesting and the current Pope, although he won't be around for much longer in my opinion, is a very remarkable man worth studying.

ok aph, regarding cloning, we disagree and that's fine. you made fine points.

as for the pope....why is he a fool? let's see..

who does he think he is?! here we have some guy that travels the world spreading a bunch of bs and acts like he's some hero. he speaks as if his opinion is the ULTIMATE opinion. like his views are the views of "god" or something. i can guarantee you that guy has no connection to "god" and will not go to heaven when he dies. i have no problems with him personally; i've never met him. he travels the world and has had an interesting life just because he is "the pope." but who really is the pope?!?! in reality, he's just a big cult leader. people laugh at that heaven's gate cult, but to me, organized religion is just as silly.

 

[LongShot]

GG, are you fogetting the pope "speaks eight languages fluently"?

that fact alone should tell you he has the market cornered on "right". (as aphie implies) LOL

 

[LongShot]

PS I see nothing wrong with engineering smarter studier human beings...


Built Tough By FORD

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from LongShot:

[BIs this the work of a creator? Who, then, created the "creator"? And who created the creator's creator? Why not just conclude "something" from "nothing"? Much simpler. Occam's Razor and all that.B]

Well, that's a good point, but I think that when you speak of a "god," then you must assume that there are aspects of this state of existence that go well beyond our simple causality and logic reasoning. There doesn't have to be a creator for god because god exists outside of time and space.

It is only our inability to understand things that reside outside of our reality that cause us problems because we attempt to take a "god" and pull him into our reality and assign our logic to his existence and purpose -- which cannot be done.

This is ultimately the greatest problem for people of science because, by the very nature of being an analytical person, it is difficult to accept that certain things *must* be accepted soley through faith and cannot be proven in our reality.

Even today, we are learning that we know less and less about the universe, since now there is debate over dark energy and how the matter we are accustomed to seeing with our eyes only comprises 5% of the universe. Also, if C (speed of light) is proven to have changed over the course of time, it may mean that the universe could still collapse on itself.

Obviously something got us here. The very fact that physics can be in a homogenius state throughout the universe (what a carbon atom does in my hand will also behave exactly the same as a carbon atom in your hand and one within the sun) reeks of intelligent design.

For those who see it, they choose faith in the realization that there will always be a domain outside of science that is untestable through experimentation. For those who choose to remain hard-core science advocates, however, they are the ones who choose to believe that everything is testable and that everything within the universe must fall underneath the limitations of human logic.

 

[LongShot]

>>Well, that's a good point, but I think that when you speak of a "god," then you must assume that there are aspects of this state of existence that go well beyond our simple causality and logic reasoning. There doesn't have to be a creator for god because god exists outside of time and space.

Precisely, so aren't you just a bit presumptuous to ASSUME A GOD (creator)?

If i see a rock move am i justified in assuming a "god" moved it? How would i prove this or provide evidence or justification for this grand assumption?

So it is with "existence". I don't understand "existence" so is this lack of understanding alone justification in attributing this state to "god"? What good does it do to create an undefinable unknowable term such as a god? Does it really help us understand any better?

I think not. God is not a prescription for further thought and understanding but on the contrary it is a declaration that further inquiry is not necessary because the "answer" is already known. HA!

 

[bobcathy1]

How did we get from cloning to god?

I guess in most people's mind it is a moral question....to clone or not to clone.

I see it from the medical perspective. Cloning extra body parts. Like a new heart for someone who needs one. We all want to live as long as possible.