Maybe some day they'll listen...

Drolgin Steingrinder · November 16, 2006, 4:34 am

...to scientists (with their pesky 'evidence') rather than God.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/15/st ... index.html

Stem cell injections fighting off muscular dystrophy in dogs with some pretty awesome results, a good sign. Now if we can just get people over their Jesus-Orwellian zealotry...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » November 16, 2006, 6:20 am

But god wants those people to suffer and die horribly, he told W so!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 16, 2006, 8:52 am

Isn't it buddhists who think that leprosy is divine punishment and won't vaccinate against it?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 16, 2006, 11:16 am

Arb...for a scientist you sure as fuck pick and choose what facts you want to use as your basis for arguments. Bush is not anti-stem cell research. It is the methods of getting those stem cells that he has problems with...as do many people.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » November 16, 2006, 11:23 am

kyoukan wrote:Isn't it buddhists who think that leprosy is divine punishment and won't vaccinate against it?

Historically speaking, most cultures beleived that. Bhuddists just struggled with the whole is it your Karma thing. If you think that is bad, you should see the way they drive...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 16, 2006, 11:30 am

Oh noes it's from something that's already dead, how unchristian (despite how many lives it would save!)

Yeah, real tough decision this one

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » November 16, 2006, 11:32 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Arb...for a scientist you sure as fuck pick and choose what facts you want to use as your basis for arguments. Bush is not anti-stem cell research. It is the methods of getting those stem cells that he has problems with...as do many people.

I wasn't arguing there I was engaging in humorous exaggeration to make a point. Sarcasm, you know?...

If you'd like to engage in an arguement over the merits of religion interfering with government to control science feel free to point out the pros of that...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 16, 2006, 11:53 am

Oh...you mean like how laws are based off of religion? I guess we should throw all of them out.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » November 16, 2006, 11:57 am

There's a big gap in the sigificance of adult and embryonic stem cells. The bush admin providing for adult stem cell research is a good thing technically but I think it also gives people the idea that one stem cell is just as good as any other.

adult stem cells can ultimately only specialize into a limited set of mature cells (differentiation potential). Much of the research applied to adult stem cells has been to explore their potential in relation to embryonic stem cells, which can produce any of the hundreds of cell types in the human body. To put it another way, they're trying to find out if adult stem cells even possess the potential that we already know exists with embryonic stem cells.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 16, 2006, 12:39 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Oh...you mean like how laws are based off of religion? I guess we should throw all of them out.

Nice red herring! He specifically said "the merits of religion interfering with government to control science". What are the pros of making laws to control or limit science, when said laws are based on religious doctrine?

To address your little fishy that you threw out, I think saying that "laws are based off of religion" is fallacious. At least for the important ones; murder, theft, etc. My intention right now is not to dispute whether there is or is not a God, but I am confident saying that was not ever an instance of a guy going up a mountain and coming down with some stone tablets that later became the basis for law.

There was, however, a group of people who realized that in order for society to function, certain moral codes needed to exist. That moral code is the basis for law, as well as being the basis for the allegories, metaphors and fables that make up religion. Religion and law are fruits of the same tree.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » November 16, 2006, 1:20 pm

From my understanding of History (and I can look this up if someone presses) there were cultures that developed their laws from Religious texts like the Hebrews and others that were pretty much a secular creation. Because we have now had about 5000 years or so of "Civilization" you can't really say that the laws we have today are totally based off one or another but rather a combiantion of both.

Marb

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 16, 2006, 1:21 pm

The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 BC (short chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » November 16, 2006, 1:37 pm

Thanks Ashur, one other thing to note about that is that Persia primarily followed Zoroasterism at the time yet choose to put down actual laws in a secular document...

Marb

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 16, 2006, 10:44 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Oh...you mean like how laws are based off of religion? I guess we should throw all of them out.

Hey look everyone. A conservative is trying to argue about science!

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 17, 2006, 12:54 am

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Oh...you mean like how laws are based off of religion? I guess we should throw all of them out.
Nice red herring! He specifically said "the merits of religion interfering with government to control science". What are the pros of making laws to control or limit science, when said laws are based on religious doctrine?

To address your little fishy that you threw out, I think saying that "laws are based off of religion" is fallacious. At least for the important ones; murder, theft, etc. My intention right now is not to dispute whether there is or is not a God, but I am confident saying that was not ever an instance of a guy going up a mountain and coming down with some stone tablets that later became the basis for law.

There was, however, a group of people who realized that in order for society to function, certain moral codes needed to exist. That moral code is the basis for law, as well as being the basis for the allegories, metaphors and fables that make up religion. Religion and law are fruits of the same tree.

lol. Sylvus you should know by now that Kilmoll is the master of fallacious logic. This thread for example:

Reality: The only bill Bush has vetoed to date in his 6 years as president is one which supported stem cell research.

Kilmoll: Bush is not anti-stem cell research.

Reality: The Constitution of the United States of America specifically addresses the separation of church (religion) and state (law).

Kilmoll: laws are based off of religion...

Kilmoll is the answer to the question: How fucking ignorant can a person be?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 17, 2006, 2:42 am

Ashur wrote:The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 BC (short chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

What you are saying is that Jesus went back in time and made laws?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » November 17, 2006, 4:00 am

Nah, but they were able to climb a mountain high and have god write down those handy laws and papyrus!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » November 17, 2006, 8:51 am

Zamtuk wrote:Nah, but they were able to climb a mountain high and have god write down those handy laws and papyrus!

That was some thick and heavy papyrus.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 17, 2006, 10:17 am

kyoukan wrote:
Ashur wrote:The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 BC (short chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
What you are saying is that Jesus went back in time and made laws?

Did I say Christianity was the only religion fuckhead? Hammurabi's code was based off his belief in pleasing his GODS. Ohhhhh.....snap!

oh and Xyun....gratz you on soeaking out your ass. You want more fatcs?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 719-6.html

President Bush Is The First President To Provide Federal Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In 2001, President Bush Set Forth A New Policy On Stem Cell Research That Struck A Balance Between The Needs Of Science And The Demands Of Conscience. In this new era, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning practices that violate the dignity of human life.

When The President Took Office, There Was No Federal Funding For Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Under The Policy Announced Five Years Ago, This Administration Became The First To Make Federal Funds Available For This Research. Federal funding was made available for research only on human embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had been destroyed before the announcement of the President's policy. The Administration has made available more than $90 million for research on these lines, allowing important research to go forward without using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos.

The bill he vetoed :

The President Vetoed H.R. 810, Which Would Overturn The Balanced Policy On Embryonic Stem Cell Research That The Administration Has Followed For The Past Five Years. This bill would also reverse the principle that Congress itself has followed for more than a decade, when each year it has prohibited Federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.

If This Bill Were To Become Law, American Taxpayers Would For The First Time In Our History Be Compelled To Fund The Deliberate Destruction Of Human Embryos. The President has made it clear to Congress he will not allow our Nation to cross this moral line. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing to reject the wrong ways when necessary.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » November 17, 2006, 11:01 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Ashur wrote:The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 BC (short chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
What you are saying is that Jesus went back in time and made laws?
Did I say Christianity was the only religion fuckhead? Hammurabi's code was based off his belief in pleasing his GODS. Ohhhhh.....snap!

oh and Xyun....gratz you on soeaking out your ass. You want more fatcs?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 719-6.html

President Bush Is The First President To Provide Federal Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In 2001, President Bush Set Forth A New Policy On Stem Cell Research That Struck A Balance Between The Needs Of Science And The Demands Of Conscience. In this new era, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning practices that violate the dignity of human life.

When The President Took Office, There Was No Federal Funding For Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Under The Policy Announced Five Years Ago, This Administration Became The First To Make Federal Funds Available For This Research. Federal funding was made available for research only on human embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had been destroyed before the announcement of the President's policy. The Administration has made available more than $90 million for research on these lines, allowing important research to go forward without using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos.

The bill he vetoed :
The President Vetoed H.R. 810, Which Would Overturn The Balanced Policy On Embryonic Stem Cell Research That The Administration Has Followed For The Past Five Years. This bill would also reverse the principle that Congress itself has followed for more than a decade, when each year it has prohibited Federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.

If This Bill Were To Become Law, American Taxpayers Would For The First Time In Our History Be Compelled To Fund The Deliberate Destruction Of Human Embryos. The President has made it clear to Congress he will not allow our Nation to cross this moral line. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing to reject the wrong ways when necessary.

Thank you Kilmoll thats exactly what I was thinking when that Felony posted that comment.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 17, 2006, 12:02 pm

Kilmoll

Cartalas