Bush and Science

[Rekaar.]

It would also be just as valid as the current "scientific" theories trying to describe it.

Until all the unknowns become known, it's just as likely to be true as false.

Smartass =p

[Jice Virago]

The simple answer is, we don't know yet. It is theorized that (in the Big Crunch Theory) the Big Bang is a repeating cycle where as gravity gradually takes its toll, the volocity at which all matter leaves the point of the exposion. Gradually all the matter starts being drawn back to that central point, re-compressing into the original superatom for a time until it eventually becomes unstable and explodes again. There is also evidence to suggest that the subatomic structures that make up all physical matter will eventually break down in the face of entropy and matter will break down into its most basic components and then collapse into the primordeal atom. Some of these theories are undergoing some revision in the face of what we have learned about Black Holes in the last few years (specifically their ability to emit energy and eventually dissipate), but the central concepts remain essentially the same.

As for Religion and Science not being mutually exclusive, I will conceed that from a philisophical standpoint that the idea of a mystical boogeyman loading the dice beyond our perceptions is not ruled out by our current understanding of the physical universe. Unfortunately, science requires you to prove something's existance to be accepted as even a working theory. All Christian Scientists can do is revise their statements to make an argument that what we have proven does not disprove god's existance, but unfortunately if they want to be scientific they would have to actually prove the existance of God, which is of course completely impossible.

I firmly believe that the simplest solutions are often the correct ones. In this case, I am being asked to believe that the entire set of physical laws of the universe were constructed by a mythical being who is never seen and there is no physical or empyrical evidence of he/she/it ever having existed. The alternative argument is that the universe simply is and that why it exists is completely irrelevent, since it is in fact here and we are experiencing it and there is a great deal of verifiable evidence that suggests how it works. We are truely miniscule parts of a huge universe and it is human vanity that makes some people, frightened by the enormity of it all, cling to their superstitions to make themselves seem more significant, cosmologically speaking, than they really are. I do not rule out that there are aspects of existance we do not yet understand within the scope of science, but to attribute such things to mystical entities and superstition is to abandon reason and any attempts to understand these things.

Until God shows up and does some of his funky magic tricks, I am going with what I can prove to be true or personally experience. I do not need some psychological placebo to direct me and make me a moral person. I am moral because my reasoning skills tell me this is in the best interests of myself and my kind.

For those of you clingning to superstition and forever revising your believes to coincide with facts, ask yourself three questions. If these questions disturb you, then treat them as hypothetical:

1) Must there be a God for the universe to function? If so why? And why could God not create a universe capable of continuing on its own?

2) Why are the mental highs experienced by Scientologists, Wiccans, and New Age faiths brain washing, but your personal "god" experiences somehow actual proof of god's existance under the same scrutiny?

3) Would you suddenly become selfish (or more selfish), cruel, and anarchistic if you knew that there was no threat of going to hell after you died for it?

Bah, who am I kidding. Adex is the only person who is going to read this post.

[Jice Virago]

It would also be just as valid as the current "scientific" theories trying to describe it.

Until all the unknowns become known, it's just as likely to be true as false.

Smartass =p

Um, no retard. You have to prove something exists. Just because you cannot disprove something does not make it a possibility, let alone a fact. I could say that Jesus molested small children in his spare time or that he was gay which is why he never married. There is no proof that he did or did not do these things. Not even the bible says anything on it one way or the other (unless you count the fact that he had a dinner party with his twelve closest male friends... hmmm) so obviously he must be a peter puffer or a pederast because there is no proof discounting it! This must be why priests keep up the fine tradition of molesting little boys to this day all as a part of God's Plan(tm).

I know that last example is going to offend a lot of the more thin skinned people, but I swear it is the only way to get through to some of you obstinant fuckers sometimes. If you can see the ludicrousness of my last example, you begin to understand the complete bemused dissapointment I have with some of your flawed arguments.

[Lynks]

I don't know how they get the peanutbutter in the middle of a Reese peanutbutter cup. I think it was God's will.

That one sounds pretty funny too.

[noel]

And so then, with regards to all your wonderfully measurable items, explain to me how it all began? If there was a "Big Bang"...what created the Big that went Bang?

They say for all things there must be a beginning. Just how old is the universe? What was there before it existed? How long did that last? What was before it? Where did everything begin? What was before that?

What we can taste touch smell see and hear has evolved immensely over the past few hundred years. We know exponentially more about our environment than we ever did in the past. Because you can better explain your environment doesn't in the least, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, disprove anything we can't describe yet. Nor does it call into serious question anything that occurs or occured which we cannot explain eleventy billion years later.

There will always be unknowns. It's another of life's tests. Will you be a Jice, or will you be a Mother Theresa?

One of the main ideas behind religion is the idea of faith. That is to say, believing in that which cannot be proven. You cannot prove the existence of God. Your faith in him though you cannot prove his existence is what makes you a good Christian.

Science on the other hand is based on logical fact, and things that can, and have been proven. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with that.

[Tenuvil]

Why are the mental highs experienced by Scientologists, Wiccans, and New Age faiths brain washing, but your personal "god" experiences somehow actual proof of god's existance under the same scrutiny?

Fuckin A.

"Born agin" Christianity has all the earmarks of a brainwashing cult...the ministers demand you give the church an unreasonable share of your income, the followers being absolutely convinced their way is the only way possible to see things and the complete negation of any opposing argument. In many ways it's far more cult like than Wicca and New Agers and approaches Scientology's cultishness.

[Cartalas]

"Until God shows up and does some of his funky magic tricks, I am going with what I can prove to be true or personally experience. I do not need some psychological placebo to direct me and make me a moral person. I am moral because my reasoning skills tell me this is in the best interests of myself and my kind. "


Who do you think gave you that ability Jice, Oh nevermind I guess it was when your dad had that big bang with your mom, Your right you win!!

[Sylvus]

The funny thing, in my opinion, is that religion is basically just formalized mythology, and as such, is kind of the predecessor to science. Man invented mythology to try to explain certain phenomena around him, and later developed science to accurately explain it. Sure we can't explain everything yet, but I'd be interested in seeing anything proved by science that was later disproved by religion.

How can anyone question that the Big Bang happened, or that man evolved, or the myriad of other things that are scientifically observable? If you want to lend credence to your argument, say that "Big Bang", when translated into God's language, means "Let there be light". There was obviously no man alive for the first five "days" of creation, I'd imagine that maybe an immortal might think that several thousand millenia seemed to only be about a week long, allowing him to create the first animals and then use evolution to further create higher species and end with the creation of man.

The bottom line is that science is not wrong. Sure a couple of theories may be off a bit and will be replaced in the future or we may be missing the answer to a couple of questions, but it's pretty much fact. None of that science disproves that there is a God though, and the point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. There appears to have been a big bang and there could be a God. Evolution is legit and there could still be a God. I think that all religions would do a bit better if they wouldn't put so much stock into the literal interpretations that a bunch of quasi-Neanderthals wrote over a thousand years before people still thought a good bloodletting was all you needed to make you feel better.

[Jice Virago]

Who do you think gave you that ability Jice, Oh nevermind I guess it was when your dad had that big bang with your mom, Your right you win!!

This is precisely why you are reguarded as a mental midget Cart. At least Adex attempts to construct an argument to support his position instead of just spouting some rehashed one liner or, worse yet, regurgitating the party line/church approved dogma. Your inability to defend your stance only serves to embaress those who share your viewpoint.

And for the record, there are other arguments that, if you had even a shred of retention of your education, would have been more scientifically plausable than some dumb prime number argument about leaves and prime numbers (which isn't even remotely true throughout nature) that has to do with symetry being more efficient in nature. Instead of burning the books, you should be reading them. The information is all out there, you just have to take that lead cap off your skull and let it in.

[Niffoni]

Um, no retard. You have to prove something exists.

This is a self-defeating argument, as it is impossible to prove.

[Voronwë]

It would also be just as valid as the current "scientific" theories trying to describe it.

Until all the unknowns become known, it's just as likely to be true as false.

Smartass =p

this is a completely illogical conclusion.

it is compelling for those who subscribe to particularly unlikely worldviews to try to construct this sort of simplification though. Because 50% >>>>> something that approaches zero.

[Cartalas]

Who do you think gave you that ability Jice, Oh nevermind I guess it was when your dad had that big bang with your mom, Your right you win!!

This is precisely why you are reguarded as a mental midget Cart. At least Adex attempts to construct an argument to support his position instead of just spouting some rehashed one liner or, worse yet, regurgitating the party line/church approved dogma. Your inability to defend your stance only serves to embaress those who share your viewpoint.

And for the record, there are other arguments that, if you had even a shred of retention of your education, would have been more scientifically plausable than some dumb prime number argument about leaves and prime numbers (which isn't even remotely true throughout nature) that has to do with symetry being more efficient in nature. Instead of burning the books, you should be reading them. The information is all out there, you just have to take that lead cap off your skull and let it in.

You know what Jice It was a joke you dumbass, Listen up bucky beaver I could defend my side till the cows come home but it does not matter It would be a waste of time. You see its people like you that dont believe in god for one reason and one reason only , You dont want to be held accountable. Is kinda like the jews not beliving in Christ you know what I guess they better hope ther is no christ seeing that they killed him.

This is why I dont talk religion some people arent worth it pal you made your decision and now you better pray your right.


But thats okay pal maybe God will let you lead a Vox or Naggy raid.

[Mak]

In the creation vs. big bang/evolution debate-

What about Michael Behe's theory that while evolution makes sense on a macro level, it fails completely on a micro level?

He is a biochemist at Lehigh University. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he presents a fairly compelling case that living cells can only be de-evolutionized to certain point, after which they are unable to function. His term is "irreducably complex", and it basically states that it is impossible for cells to make the leap from a state of basic parts to something that actually performs a function.

An example he uses is that a cell = a moustrap. A moustrap is comprised of several parts, and if any one part is removed it is no longer a mousetrap, just a collection of useless parts that cannot perform the required function.

He essentially states that evolution is not possible on a micro-cellular level.

[noel]

The fossil record indicates otherwise.

[Mak]

The fossil record indicates otherwise.

Was that responding to my post?

If so, I would disagree with you. In Darwin's own words from The Origin of Species:

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

[Lynks]

You see its people like you that dont believe in god for one reason and one reason only , You dont want to be held accountable.

Accountable for what?

[noel]

The fossil record indicates otherwise.

Was that responding to my post?

If so, I would disagree with you. In Darwin's own words from The Origin of Species:

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Yes, it was a response. I realize that there are holes in the fossil record, but there is also a great deal of the fossil record that is without holes, and therefore, I think the record can be said to have merit.

[Mak]

I'm not a biogeologist, but can you even apply "fossil records" on a microcellular level?

[Adex_Xeda]

Until God shows up and does some of his funky magic tricks, I am going with what I can prove to be true or personally experience.

God showed up as a burning pilar of flame spiraling into the sky and blocked an Egyptian army from trampling Moses and the gang. He then split a sea wide open to let his folks through. Yet a few days later the very people that saw all of this rejected God and were worshiping an idol.

Jesus showed up and ressurected the dead, cured madness, cured sick people, heck he even tele-cured a guy miles away after a messenger came up and requested help.

Yet even after all of those fireworks Jesus' own diciples rejected him.

Even when God peformed funky magic tricks, people rejected him. There's something else at play in the human heart that will reject even the boldest evidence of God.

1) Must there be a God for the universe to function? If so why? And why could God not create a universe capable of continuing on its own?

1). This universe is vast and fantastic to a scale that we can't even understand. Why is it here?. What's the point? We've learned through observation that everything degrades. If everything we see is rolling down the universal hill, what power placed the universe at the top of the hill? What or Who originated our universal energy UP the hill to start the whole process? What/Who initiatied primal cause?

I see God as the necessary for explaining primal cause.

2) Why are the mental highs experienced by Scientologists, Wiccans, and New Age faiths brain washing, but your personal "god" experiences somehow actual proof of god's existance under the same scrutiny?

I can't speak to the feelings of Scientologists, Wiccans, and New Agers. I have not experienced what they have.

I can only relate what I've experienced with God personally. God has interacted to me in a manner consistant with the bible. This gives me confidence that the bible a correct reference to undestanding God's character.

3) Would you suddenly become selfish (or more selfish), cruel, and anarchistic if you knew that there was no threat of going to hell after you died for it?

My actions aren't inspired by a fear of hell. The more I interact with God, the less and less I desire to do things that he considers sinful. Over time you "lose" the desire for sinful acts. He changes your heart.

If you love someone you look for ways to please them. You can't just directly hug God. But you can do things that are pleasing to him so that he knows you love him. It's like mowing the lawn for your dad. The action is an expression of love. Likewise abstaining from sinful behavior is a way of hugging God.

For me, thoughts of hell were resolved long ago when I first placed my trust in Jesus.

If there was no hell or God. I would have never known him. Since knowing God has changed my life, without God I'd be a different person, a more selfish person I'm sure.

*edit* Typos

[Lynks]

Until God shows up and does some of his funky magic tricks, I am going with what I can prove to be true or personally experience.

God showed up as a burning pilar of flame spiraling into the sky and blocked an Egyptian army from trampling Moses and the gang. He then spit a sea wide open to let his folks through. Yet a few days later the very people that saw all of this rejected God and were worshiping an idol.

Jesus showed up and ressurected the dead, cured madness, cured sick people, heck he even tele-cured a guy miles away after a messenger came up and requested help.

Yet even after all of those fireworks Jesus' own diciples rejected him.

But this is all speculation according to a book written 2000 years ago.

[Voronwë]

He essentially states that evolution is not possible on a micro-cellular level.

he is in in the vast minority on that opinion. perhaps a minority of one. I have not read his book, but i have read news pieces on it, and there are some fairly thorough refutations of his points out there as well.

there are plausible mechanisms for how catalytic activity (proteins) could arise from genetic material. In fact there are examples still with us today. Messenger RNA (mRNA). It is both "message" and "catalyst", meaning that it contains information as well as does work. so in other words "complexity" can even be reduced to a pre-cellular level. Anybody with a decent understanding of 1990s molecular biology knows this.

Viruses are perhaps an indication of what pre-life material was like. Of course only viruses that parasitize cellular organisms' machinery for replication exist today - quite logically because of the massive competitive advantage this had to perpetuate themselves, making it possible to effectively combat the evolution of immune systems.

The fact that Darwin's theories on the mecahnism of evolution may not have been accurate in 1870s (before we know what genes, DNA, etc even are) does not mean that evolution or natural selection do not occur.

Newton was able to describe gravity in the 1700s, and people knew about it much earlier than that , but it wasn't until Einstein in 1917 or so that we really unfolded another layer of understanding about how it worked - an understanding that is still evolving and incomplete.

Evolution is a fact.

Natural Selection is a theory that explains that fact.

Basically, i dont think there is a wealth of fossil evidence that covers the evolutionary scale from "a-cellularity" to prokaryotic organisms (simple cells like bacteria).

Just because that time period for now (and maybe for all time) is effectively a black box for us, does not mean that it is proof of God.

Basically, the absolute best argument that can be made for creationism is "well we can't explain this".

1000 years ago we couldn't explain why the earth wasnt the center of the universe.

105 years ago we couldn't definitively explain that matter was composed of atoms.

did that mean that 1000 years ago the sun orbited the earth? no

did that mean that 104 years ago, with the publication of a paper by a patent clerk in Switzerland, that all of the universe instantly changed its material composition to include the atomic level?

THe fossil record v. Genesis is a perfectly fair comparison for explanations of how life arose. Sure the fossil record is incomplete. If it was completely complete, with diagrams, and even some footnotes, then i think we would have some proof of Divine Design . THe fact is that while incomplete, it is orders of magnitude more likely than the Genesis myth. For starters Genesis is not even internally consistent (2 creation stories have different creation orders for humans). Secondly, it is all but impossible for 6 billion people to arise from 2 sires with the amount of genetic variation present in our species in 5,800 years.

so lets say the fossil record is 50% complete. I'll take 50%, hell i'll take 0.5% over 0.0000000000000keep typing zeros for awhile00000001%

[miir]

he even tele-cured a guy miles away

Hehe, that made me smile.

[Adex_Xeda]

Jice wrote:

Until God shows up and does some of his funky magic tricks, I am going with what I can prove to be true or personally experience.


God showed up as a burning pilar of flame spiraling into the sky and blocked an Egyptian army from trampling Moses and the gang. He then split a sea wide open to let his folks through. Yet a few days later the very people that saw all of this rejected God and were worshiping an idol.

Jesus showed up and ressurected the dead, cured madness, cured sick people, heck he even tele-cured a guy miles away after a messenger came up and requested help.

Yet even after all of those fireworks Jesus' own diciples rejected him.

Even when God peformed funky magic tricks, people rejected him. There's something else at play in the human heart that will reject even the boldest evidence of God.

But this is all speculation according to a book written 2000 years ago.

The bible has been carefully maintained like no other document in history. The efforts people have made to maintain it's accuracy is unparalelled.

But that's not the selling point to me. For me, the God that I've experienced, is consistant with the descriptions of him found in the bible. God is outside the bible and interacting with me and other christains. These interactions serve to confirm that the bible is his book.

That's a "right now" confirmation of biblical accuracy for me.

Suppose you found an old diary in a junk sale. You read the diary and find that it reports to be the chronicle of your grandfather. You knowing your grandfather personally are able to see if the diary's contents are consistant with what you personally know about your grandfather. If they match, the validity of the old diary is confirmed.

[Lynks]

Suppose you found an old diary in a junk sale. You read the diary and find that it reports to be the chronicle of your grandfather. You knowing your grandfather personally are able to see if the diary's contents are consistant with what you personally know about your grandfather. If they match, the validity of the old diary is confirmed.

Suppose you found a book about vampires. It tells you how vampires came to be and how to kill them. Not only that, many other people wrote about vampires. Do you conclude that it must be real too?

[Cartalas]

Suppose you found an old diary in a junk sale. You read the diary and find that it reports to be the chronicle of your grandfather. You knowing your grandfather personally are able to see if the diary's contents are consistant with what you personally know about your grandfather. If they match, the validity of the old diary is confirmed.

Suppose you found a book about vampires. It tells you how vampires came to be and how to kill them. Not only that, many other people wrote about vampires. Do you conclude that it must be real too?

If I knew a Vampire personally it might be, Swing miss try again

[Lynks]

Suppose you found an old diary in a junk sale. You read the diary and find that it reports to be the chronicle of your grandfather. You knowing your grandfather personally are able to see if the diary's contents are consistant with what you personally know about your grandfather. If they match, the validity of the old diary is confirmed.

Suppose you found a book about vampires. It tells you how vampires came to be and how to kill them. Not only that, many other people wrote about vampires. Do you conclude that it must be real too?

If I knew a Vampire personally it might be, Swing miss try again

Do you know God personally? I doubt you have ever met him in person. Swing miss, you try again.

[Adex_Xeda]

That's the whole point Lynks.

God wants to interact with all of us personally.

Yes, I know God on a personal basis. That door is open to everyone.

[masteen]

Hasn't a lot of the land mass that existed a billion years ago beed subducted into the mantle? We're not getting any fossil record out of molten rock.

[Sylvus]

The bible has been carefully maintained like no other document in history. The efforts people have made to maintain it's accuracy is unparalelled.

That statement is so wrong that it is mind-boggling to me.

I appreciate and am in some ways jealous of your relationship with God, and I have no doubts that what you see of him is consistent with the overall themes and messages in the Bible. I won't say that everything in the Bible (maybe not even most of it) was created to fit someone's political motivations, but with all of the translations and re-translations, and the lack of actual "first editions" or manuscripts from the original authors, I have a hard time with anyone believing that it is accurate. Too many people have had their hand in it for it to remain as it was 2000 years ago.

P.S. You should capitalize the name of your holiest of books!

[masteen]

I'm willing to bet that the Bible has been mistranslated, miscontextualized, misused, and purposely revised to suit the PTB more times than any other book in history.

[Adex_Xeda]

Ok let's try to steer this wild tangent back on track.


Science!

Voronwe,

I think scientific research does need ethical boundaries.

Individuals determine right and wrong. Individuals by consensus and representative government determine a code of right and wrong into our laws.

Those laws are enforced on businesses. They're enforced on individuals, and I think they are rightly enforced on scientific research.

Is a particular avenue of scientific research moral and ethical? If you think it is and I think it is not, should the proper channel for winning on your side be the attempt to change our laws to make that avenue acceptable?

Rather than saying Bush is wrong to limit stem cell research, wouldn't it be better to say that our society's stance on the wrongness of stem cell research is ill considered?

[noel]

Of course science needs ethical boundaries. No one is arguing that it doesn't.

What is wholly ridiculous though is the notion that people who profess to be religious are the people who should set the ethical boundaries or should have some inherently higher right to determine what is and is not ethically acceptable.

No, No and No.

[miir]

The bible has been carefully maintained like no other document in history. The efforts people have made to maintain it's accuracy is unparalelled.

Then why are there so many different translations?
If it is so accurate, why are there so many diverse interpretations?

[Cartalas]

The bible has been carefully maintained like no other document in history. The efforts people have made to maintain it's accuracy is unparalelled.

Then why are there so many different translations?
If it is so accurate, why are there so many diverse interpretations?

God only knows. I blame it all on the catholics

[masteen]

God moves ony knows.

WTF? Seriously, WTF?

[noel]

God moves ony knows.

WTF? Seriously, WTF?

LOL I was thinking the same thing, but I just chocked it up to Cart being Cart, and not caring how people perceive Cart. Comedy gold though.

Cart, english please?

[vn_Tanc]

Release The Dead Sea Scrolls!

[Voronwë]

Ok let's try to steer this wild tangent back on track.


Science!

Voronwe,

I think scientific research does need ethical boundaries.

Individuals determine right and wrong. Individuals by consensus and representative government determine a code of right and wrong into our laws.

Those laws are enforced on businesses. They're enforced on individuals, and I think they are rightly enforced on scientific research.

Is a particular avenue of scientific research moral and ethical? If you think it is and I think it is not, should the proper channel for winning on your side be the attempt to change our laws to make that avenue acceptable?

Rather than saying Bush is wrong to limit stem cell research, wouldn't it be better to say that our society's stance on the wrongness of stem cell research is ill considered?

i agree that ethical boundaries need to exist.

the good news is they do exist. THe NIH for one has a proven, stellar track record of determining what is appropriate to fund, and how much funding should be allocated.

In other words, they have policed themselves without incident, focused research on medical advancement in the interest of our population and humanity at large with an eye on the future and a clear eye on what is practical and plausible today.

One might say the NIH has never faced an issue like this before, but that is false. In the 1960s and 1970s in-vitro fertilization was developed and the technology that exists now from the furthering of this work - still ongoing today.

No politician has come out demanding bans or major reforms in in-vitro fertilization, and they won't. Because not only is it not morally wrong, it is political suicide. I have 2 awesome nephews because of it. I'm sure some of the readers of this board exist because of it. I can say with certainty many of us may know somebody who exists because of it, and several of us may have to depend upon it one day to have children of our own.

The tissue we are talking about in stem-cell research is in many cases EXACTLY the same tissue we are talking about with IVF. Exactly the same. One is used to create new people, the other is used to save existing people.

Society has not crumbled because of IVF. I didnt get hit up by a brochure at my wife's obstitrician offering to sell me a genetically modified daughter. A kid who guaranteed (or my money back) would throw a 95mph fastball by age 12!!

There is no reason to believe that the NIH needs additional guidance with stem-cell research as well in my opinion.

Even if they do, to perform that guidance solely to the ends of one particular interpretation of one religion is contravened by the Constitution in my opinion.

[Cartalas]

God moves ony knows.

WTF? Seriously, WTF?

LOL I was thinking the same thing, but I just chocked it up to Cart being Cart, and not caring how people perceive Cart. Comedy gold though.

Cart, english please?

Ok its fixed opps!!!

[masteen]

I heard that the dead sea scrolls are actually robots from the future disguised as scrolls...

[Bubba Grizz]

Alms for an ex-leper?

[Adex_Xeda]

Voronwe,

You stated that politicians would not oppose IVF because it would be political suicide. In that example, our society has expressed broad consensus that IVF is morally acceptable, thus the hesitancy of a politician to oppose it.

There's my theory in action. If we as a society can come to consensus on the rightness of stem cell research political barriers will melt away. Right now there is split opinions on the issue, and I'd say that objection isn't explicitly coming from one religious grouping.

My point,

Our group morality as a nation is being decently expressed through our laws. Right now group morality is hesitant to use fetal stem cells. Convince society of the rightness of this research and research will happen.

[Xzion]

Voronwe,

You stated that politicians would not oppose IVF because it would be political suicide. In that example, our society has expressed broad consensus that IVF is morally acceptable, thus the hesitancy of a politician to oppose it.

There's my theory in action. If we as a society can come to consensus on the rightness of stem cell research political barriers will melt away. Right now there is split opinions on the issue, and I'd say that objection isn't explicitly coming from one religious grouping.

My point,

Our group morality as a nation is being decently expressed through our laws. Right now group morality is hesitant to use fetal stem cells. Convince society of the rightness of this research and research will happen.

no.

Pretty much the only people oposed to such scientific progression which can enable us to save lives in the future is the godamn religious right. They believe there personal morality should be opressed over the rest of the nation, they believe the governments job is to regulate an individuals morality, rational people dont.

The vast, vasy majority of this country supports stem cell reaserch in all forms, it is fucking insanely hypocritical to have abortion legalized and stem cell reaserch partially banned. This ALONE, regardless of ones other views is enough to cast your vote as one to kick bush out of office, regardless of your other views, for the good of the country, our children, and our future.

[Voronwë]

exactly Adex, we support IVF.

the stem cell research we are talking about doing is not dramatically different than IVF. People just don't understand how similar they are because it is a very complex issue. and there hasn't been until this summer any major public discussion of the issue.

i think the fact that IVF is an accepted practice and a proven success story by the scientific community that demonstrates that the regulation that the Bush administration is putting on stem cell research is unwarranted, unwise, and unrepresentative of the sentiments of the public at large.

Adex, the majority of Americans today do not have the scientific understanding to make an informed decision on IVF, and it has been around for 30+ years. They are "for" it because, just about everybody wants to have kids and grandkids.

Waiting for consensus from the general public on cutting edge scientific research is how NOT to stay on the cutting edge. Do the majority of Americans even have a personal computer yet?

[Siji]

Release The Dead Sea Scrolls!

It'll never happen.

[masteen]

Release The Dead Sea Scrolls!

It'll never happen.

Because then we'd get to see the part of Jesus' gospel where he speaks out against organized religion, because through him, every man has his own personal conduit to God. The whole Catholic church is a corruption of these teachings, and that's the reason the Vatican will never allow the Dead Sea Scrolls to see the light of day.

[Aaeamdar]

I think scientific research does need ethical boundaries.

Of course it does (though YOUR religion does not need to define those boundaries - but I'll skip that for now).

Now back to how Bush has actually used this. I asked before, but no response - so here it is again, explain the "ethical boundaries" Bush was setting when he:

1. Removed Plan B from the non-prescritpion list (remember - its still available, just need a prescrition, so its harder to get (especially fo rthe young and the poor).

2. Ordered the DoC to ignore scientific evidence (which it was required by law to consider) when they softened the Dolphin-safe lable on Tuna products sold in the US.

3. Has his staff ensure that scientific appointments are on the same political page as him (these are on what every other administration prior to Bush has considered non-political appointments).

These are all things Bush has done and are examples (along with the stem cell research issue that will, thankfully, be lifted Jan 2005) of why thousands of scientists from both parties (like the hundreds of Diplomats from both parties) signed the document in the first post on this thread. So, again, what "ethicial boundary" did bush help secure in any of these acts?

[Rekaar.]

Do the majority of Americans even have a personal computer yet?

Overwhelmingly, yes.

[Rekaar.]

I think scientific research does need ethical boundaries.

Of course it does (though YOUR religion does not need to define those boundaries - but I'll skip that for now).

Who's then? Yours? Mine? What makes your point of view so superior that you can make that kind of statement? Heck at least he has generations of history on his side.

[Niffoni]

Science!

AHH! He blinded me! With Science!